Introduction
The Bombay High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia, Civil Revision Application (St.) No. 23914 of 2023, decided on 17th March 2026, has clarified the scope of the Court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment considers whether a suit can be continued once the very cause of action on which it is founded ceases to exist during its pendency.

Facts in Brief
The Respondent was a lessee of lands at Kanjur under leases granted for a period of 99 years commencing from 15th October 1917. The leases were terminated by the Union of India on 2nd November 2004. A suit was filed in 2005 challenging the termination and seeking a declaration that the leases were valid and subsisting. During the pendency of the suit, the lease period expired on 14th October 2016. The Applicants took out a Notice of Motion seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that it had become infructuous. The Trial Court rejected the application. This order was challenged before the High Court.

Issues for Consideration
The court had to decide whether a suit can be dismissed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the cause of action has come to an end during its pendency.

Findings of the Court
The Court noted that the only substantive relief in the suit was a declaration that the lease continued to subsist. Upon expiry of the lease on 14th October 2016, the relief sought was rendered infructuous. There was no necessity to adjudicate the validity of the termination once the right to occupy had otherwise come to an end.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers, (2004) 11 SCC 168, and reiterated that the Court can take note of subsequent events and if such events render the proceedings infructuous, it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the litigation. The Court clarified that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code does not apply in such a situation, as the plaint disclosed a cause of action when instituted and that the power to deal with such a situation must be traced to Section 151 of the Code.

The Court rejected the reasoning of the Trial Court that the existence of interim orders justified continuation of the suit. It held that interlocutory orders are in aid of final relief and cannot survive once the main proceeding comes to an end.

The contention that the Plaintiff intended to amend the plaint to include a prayer for renewal of the lease was also rejected. The Court held that the issue must be determined on the basis of the pleadings as they stood on the date of the impugned order. A suit cannot be retained on the basis of a proposed future cause of action. If any independent cause of action exists, it must be pursued separately.

The Court further distinguished the judgments in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwar, (2005) 2 SCC 256 and My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society v. B. Mahesh, (2022) 19 SCC 806, and held that in the present case there was no alternate remedy available to address a situation where a suit had become infructuous due to subsequent events. In such circumstances, recourse to Section 151 of the Code was justified.

Conclusion
The High Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the suit as infructuous.

The Court has emphasised that once the cause of action has come to an end, the suit need not be retained on the file of the Court. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that such infructuous litigation is disposed of by having recourse to its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The mere existence of interlocutory orders cannot justify continuation of a suit which is otherwise rendered infructuous. Interlocutory orders are in aid of final relief and cannot survive once the main proceeding comes to an end. Similarly, the Court has clarified that the suit cannot be kept pending on the basis that the Plaintiff may in future seek to incorporate a new cause of action by amendment. The issue must be determined on the basis of the pleadings as they stand. The judgment thus reinforces that a suit which has become infructuous ought not to be continued and must be dismissed.¹

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar