The Bombay High Court has dismissed a long-pending civil suit over salt land leases, holding that the case had become “infructuous” after the lease period expired in 2016. The Court emphasized that courts cannot keep “dead litigation” alive merely to continue interim reliefs.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to large parcels of salt land in Mumbai’s Kanjur area, leased to the plaintiff for 99 years starting from 1917. The Union of India terminated these leases in 2004, prompting the lessee to file a suit in 2005 challenging the termination and seeking a declaration that the lease remained valid.
While the case was pending, the lease tenure naturally expired on 14 October 2016. Following this, the Union of India moved an application seeking dismissal of the suit, arguing that the original cause of action no longer survived.
However, the City Civil Court rejected this request in 2022, leading to the present revision before the High Court.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the core relief sought in the suit was a declaration that the lease continued to subsist. Once the lease period ended, that relief became meaningless.
“The solitary substantial prayer in the suit has been rendered infructuous with expiry of tenure of lease,” the Court observed.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to underline that courts must take note of subsequent events. If those events extinguish the original cause of action, the suit should not be kept pending.
Read also:- No Charge, No Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in 1998 Abduction-Murder Case
Importantly, the bench rejected the argument that the case should continue because interim protection had been granted earlier.
“The mere possibility of an interim order coming to an end cannot be a ground for keeping an otherwise dead suit pending,” the judge stated.
The Court also clarified that inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be used to dismiss such infructuous cases where no specific provision applies.
The plaintiff argued that the cause of action still survived and pointed to a proposed amendment seeking renewal of the lease.
The Court was not convinced. It noted that no such amendment had been filed when the trial court passed its order in 2022. Even later, the attempt to amend came years after the lease had expired.
Read also:- DNA Test Cannot Be Used to Prove Adultery in Divorce Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court
“The Court cannot retain a suit under a hope that the Plaintiff may introduce a new cause of action in future,” the bench remarked.
Allowing the Union of India’s revision plea, the Bombay High Court set aside the trial court’s 2022 order and allowed the application seeking dismissal of the suit.
The Court ordered that Civil Suit No. 6256 of 2005 stands dismissed as infructuous and refused any stay on its judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia
Case Number: Civil Revision Application (ST.) No. 23914 of 2023
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: 17 March 2026
Counsels:
- For Applicants: Anil Singh (ASG) with team
- For Respondent: Aditya Bapat with S.A.K. Najam-es-sani
