2004 (3) TMI 799 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of a revision against the dismissal of an application u/s 151 CPC - Challenged the termination of an agency - Suit for declaration without consequential relief - application lacks Bona fides - HELD THAT -We have carefully examined the various provisions of the CPC which provides or contemplates filing of an appeal but we find no such provision available to the appellant to file an appeal against the order made by the trial court on an application filed under Section 151 CPC. Nor has the learned counsel appearing for the respondent been able to point out any such provision therefore, the said argument has to be rejected. In the instant case, the appellant contends that during the pendency of the first suit, certain subsequent events have taken place which has made the first suit infructuous and in law the said suit cannot be kept pending and continued solely for the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the said suit. It is clear from record that by the subsequent event if the original proceeding has become infructuous, ex debito justitiae, it will be the duty of the court to take such action as is necessary in the interest of justice which includes disposing of infructuous litigation. For the said purpose it will be open to the parties concerned to make an application u/s 151 of CPC to bring to the notice of the court the facto and circumstances which have made the pending litigation infructuous. Of course, when such an application is made, the court will enquire into the alleged facts and circumstances to find out whether the pending litigation has in fact become infructuous or not. While dismissing the application I.A.No. 20651/2001 the courts below proceeded not on the basis that the original notice of termination has not become infructuous, but on the basis that the said application lacks in bona fide and if the said application is allowed the interlocutory injunction hitherto enjoyed by the plaintiff will get vacated and consequently the plaintiff will be prejudiced. The question for our consideration now is whether such ground can be considered as valid and legal. While so considering the said question one basic principle that should be borne in mind is that interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa. No interlocutory order will survive after the original proceeding comes to an end. This is a well established principle in law as could be seen from the judgment of this Court in Kavita Trehan (Mrs.) and Anr. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. 1994 (7) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore, in our opinion, the courts below erred in continuing an infructuous suit just to keep the interlocutory order alive which in a manner of speaking amounts to putting the cart before the dead horse. We have already noticed that the courts below have also held that the application of the appellant lacks in bona fide. We fail to understand how this is so. If a party has a legal right to ask for dismissal of an infructuous suit, and pursuant to the said right it makes an application for dismissal of said suit, the same cannot be termed as an act in malice. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the continuation of a suit that has become infructuous due to the disappearance of the cause of action amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The application u/s 151 CPC for the dismissal of the suit was deemed maintainable. Consequently, O.S.No. 4212/95 was dismissed as infructuous, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a suit challenging the termination of an agency.
2. Suit for declaration without consequential relief.
3. Dismissal of a suit as infructuous due to subsequent events.
4. Bona fides of the application for dismissal of the suit.
5. Maintainability of a revision against the dismissal of an application u/s 151 CPC.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of a Suit Challenging Termination of an Agency
The appellant argued that a suit challenging the termination of an agency, which is a personal contract, is not maintainable u/s 14 of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that this argument was not the basis of the application filed by the appellant before the trial court and thus, was not entertained.

Issue 2: Suit for Declaration Without Consequential Relief
The appellant contended that a suit for mere declaration without seeking consequential relief is barred u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act. However, this argument was also not the basis of the original application and was not considered by the court.

Issue 3: Dismissal of a Suit as Infructuous Due to Subsequent Events
The appellant filed I.A.No. 20651/2001 u/s 151 CPC for the dismissal of O.S.No. 4212/95 on the ground that the suit had become infructuous due to a subsequent termination notice dated 23.8.2001. The court agreed that if the original cause of action has disappeared due to subsequent events, the suit should be dismissed as infructuous. The court emphasized that interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and should not survive after the original proceeding ends.

Issue 4: Bona Fides of the Application for Dismissal of the Suit
The trial court and the High Court rejected the application on the ground that it lacked bona fides and would prejudice the respondent by dissolving the interim injunction. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that if a suit has become infructuous, its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, and the application for its dismissal cannot be termed as lacking bona fides.

Issue 5: Maintainability of a Revision Against the Dismissal of an Application u/s 151 CPC
The respondent argued that a revision against the dismissal of an application u/s 151 CPC was not maintainable. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding no provision in the CPC that prohibits such a revision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the continuation of a suit that has become infructuous due to the disappearance of the cause of action amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The application u/s 151 CPC for the dismissal of the suit was deemed maintainable. Consequently, O.S.No. 4212/95 was dismissed as infructuous, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout.

← Previous Next →