Holding

An application under Section 151 CPC to dismiss a suit as infructuous is maintainable, and an interlocutory order cannot survive the dismissal of the principal suit.

Summary

Shipping Corporation of India terminated an agency agreement with Machado Brothers in 1995; the latter sued for a declaration that the termination was illegal and obtained an interim injunction. In 2001 the corporation issued a second termination notice, prompting the respondent to file another suit. The corporation then filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the first suit as infructuous, arguing the later notice superseded the earlier one. The trial court and the Madras High Court rejected the application, fearing the loss of the interim injunction. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 151 applications are maintainable when no specific provision bars them, that an interlocutory order cannot survive the dismissal of the main suit, and that continuing an infructuous suit merely to keep an interim order alive is an abuse of process. Consequently, the first suit was dismissed as infructuous and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The maintainability of an application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of a suit as infructuous.
Whether an interlocutory injunction survives the dismissal of the principal suit.
Whether dismissal of the suit would prejudice the plaintiff by vacating the interim order.
The requirement of bona‑fide in filing a Section 151 application.
Whether the suit can be continued solely to preserve an interim relief.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. Order 12 Rule 6, s. Order 15 Rule 1, s. Order 15 Rule 2, s. Order 23 Rule 1, s. Order 39 Rule 1, s. Order 39 Rule 2, s. Order 7 Rule 11
Specific Relief Acts. 14, s. 34

Subjects

Section 151 CPCinfructuous suitinterlocutory injunctionabuse of processagency agreement terminationcivil procedureinterim reliefcause of actionmaintainability of applicationcivil appeals

Judgment

A SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
v. i'
MACHADO BROTHERS AND ORS.

I:
MARCH 25, 2004
,.
B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.]

Civil Procedure Code-Section 151-Application under-Maintainability
of-Earlier suit filed by party rendered infructuous by subsequent events-· I
.>
Application under Section 151 for dismissal of earlier suit as i11fh1ctuous-
c Held, maintainable.

Civil Procedure Code-Order 39 Rule I & 2-lnterlocutory order-
Continuance of-Suit filed by the plaintiff became infructuous-App/ication to
dismiss the suit as infructuous dismissed on the ground that it would vacate
the interim relief granted in favour of the plaintiff-Held, an infructuous suil
D cannot be continued to keep the interlocutory order alive-Civil Procedure
Code-Section 151.

The appellant had appointed the respondent as its agent. By notice
dated 23.2.1995, the appellant terminated the contract of agency. The
respondent filed a suit seeking, inter alia, declaration that the termination
E
was illegal and void. In the said suit, the respondent was granted interim
relief restraining the appellant from interfering in the agency of the
respondent. The interim relief granted to the respondent was confirmed
by the High Court.

The appellant, by another notice dated 23.8.2001, again terminated
F
the agency of the respondent on certain different grounds. On receipt of
the notice, the respondent filed another suit and was granted an order of
status quo by the Trial Court.

The appellant filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the
Trial Court in the first suit of the respondent praying for dismissal of the
G
first suit on the ground that it had become infructuous on the issuance of
the second notice and institution of the latter suit by the respondent.

The Trial Court rejected the application of the appellant on the ,,..
ground that it lacked bona fide and allowing the application would defeat
H 584
SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA l TD.,. Ml\CHADO BROS. 585
the injunction granted in favour of the respondent in the first suit. A
The appellant filed revision petition before the High Court. The High
Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that as dismissal of
the first suit would result in vacating the order of interim inj.unction
granted in the said suit, the same could not be permitted.
B
On the appeal to the Court, the respondent contested the appeal on
the ground, inter alia, that application under Section 151 CPC was not
maintainable before the High Court.

Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1. lfthere is no specific provision which prohibits thegrant
of relief sought in an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, the
Courts have all the necessary power under Section 151 CPC to make
suitable order to prevent the abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the
Court exercising the power under Section 151 CPC first has to consider
whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other D
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and if there is no such
prohibition then the Court will consider whether such power should be
exercised or not on the basis of facts mentioned in the application.
(593-B-CI
E
Mis Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. ltd., Barabanki (UP.) v.
Kanhayalal Bhargava and Ors., AIR (I 966) SC 1899, referred to.

1.2. By the subsequent event if the original proceeding has become
infructuous, ex debito j ustitiae, it will be the duty of the Court to take
such action as is necessary in the interest of justice which includes F
disposing of infructuous litigation. For the said purpose it will be open to
the parties concerned to make an application under Section 151 of CPC
to bring to the notice of the Court the facts and circumstances which have
made in the pending litigation infructuous. Of course, when such an
application is made, the Court will inquire into the alleged facts and
circumstances to find out whether the pending litigation has in fact become G
infructuous or not. (594-G-H; 595-AI

Pasupuleti Venkateswarulu v. The Motor & General Traders, (19751 I
SCC 770; Pallerson v. State of Alabama. 294 US 600 and J. M. Biswas v. N
K. Bhattacharjee, (20021 4 SCC 68, referred to.
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A 2. Interlocutory orders arc made in the aid of final orders and not
vice versa. No interlocutory order will survive after the original proceeding
comes to an end. The Courts below erred in continuing an infructuous
suit just to keep the interlocutory order alive which in the manner of
speaking to amounts to putting the cart before the dead horse. [595-E, GI

B Kavita Trehan (Mrs.) and Anr. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd, [19941
5 sec 380, referred to.

3. The ground given by the Courts below that the dismissal of the
suit would prejudice the respondent on the ground of interlocutory order j
getting dissolved, cannot be sustained. If the suit in fact has be1:ome
C infructuous, consequences of dismissal of such suit cannot cause any
prejudice to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the consequence should be
to the contrary, that is, such continuance of infructuous suit would cause
prejudice to the defendant. Continuation of a suit which has become
infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action would amount fo an
D abuse of the process of the Court and interest of justice requires such suit
should be disposed of as having become infructuous. The application under
Section 151 of CPC in this regard is maintainable. [595-H; 596-A, q

4. 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
.
E of the said suit, the same cannot be termed as an act in malice. [596-BI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1855-1856
of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2003 of the Madras High
Court in C.R.P. (P.O.) No. 309/2003 and C.M.P. No. 2222 of 2003.
F C.A. Sundram, Vishwajit Singh, Ms. Rohini Musa and Prashanto Sen
for the Appellants.

P.R. Kovilan, V. Krishna Murthy and Dr. A. Francis Julian for the
Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.
These two civil appeals arise out of a common order made by the High
H Court of Madras at Chennai in Civil Revision Petition (P.O.) No.309 of '.!003
SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.,. MACHADO BROS. [HEGDE .ll 587
and CMP No. 2222 of 2003. By the above order, the High Court upheld an A
order made by the City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A. No. 20651 of 200 I in
O.S. No. 4212 of 1995. The said I.A. filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the
appellant herein was for the dismissal of the suit O.S. No. 4212/95 which was
filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the ·said suit had become
infructuous.
B
The facts necessary for .the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

~. The appel Iant herein had appointed the respondent as the Steamship
Agent of the appellant for the purpose of handling tankers, bulk carriers, and
tramp vessels, calling at the port of Tuticorin. It is the contention of the
appellant that the said agreement provides for termination of the contract. On C
being dissatisfied with the conduct of the respondent, invoking the said clause
of termination and for the reasons mentioned therein, by a notice dated
23.2.1995; the appellant tem1inated the said contract of agency. The respondent
herein challenged the said termination by way of a suit in O.S.No.4212/95 in
the City Civil Court at Madras (the trial court). In the said suit the respondent D
inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:

"The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a judgment and decree against
the defendants I to 3 for a declaration to declare that the order of the
termination issued by the !st defendants on 23.2.1995 through telex
temiinating the Plaintiffs agency, as per the agreement dated 3.6.1988, E
is illegal, void and unenforceable."
•
During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent also prayed for an
interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the agency
of the respondent. The trial court by an order· dated 24.11.1995 was pleased
to grant interim relief sought for by the respondent which became final F
consequent upon the appellant's challenge to the same made before the High
Court being rejected.

During such continuation of the agency, the appellant allegedly noticed
certain financial irregularities and was contemplating to take fresh steps to
terminate the agency once again. Anticipating such subsequent termination, G
the respondent herein filed another suit O.S.No.4849/2001 before the trial
court praying for production of accounts of the appellant and appointment of
an Advocate Commissioner to scrutinize the accounts of the parties.

During the pendency of the above noted two suits filed by the respondent H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A the appellant by a notice dated 23.8.200 I again terminated the agency of the
respondent on the ground of respondent charging excess amount and on the
charge of tampering with invoices and bills. The said notice stated that the
appellant was terminating the agency under Clause 31 of the Agency
Agreement and on expiry of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the said
B notice the agency will stand terminated.

On receipt of the above notice, the respondent filed another suit for
permanent injunction in O.S. No. 5100/2001. In the said suit, respondent
sought for an interlocutory injunction but the trial court in the said application ,J.!.
granted an order of status quo. The appellant attempted to get the said order
C of status quo vacated and having failed, it challenged the same. in a revision
petition before the High Court along with a prayer for dismissal of all the
three suits pending before the trial court. The said revision petition came up
for orders before the High Court on 7.12.2001 and the same was remanded
with the direction that I.A.No. 14780 of 2001 should be heard with
1.A.No.15301 ·of 2001. Thus when the matter stood remanded to the trial
D court, the appellant filed I.A. No. 20651 of 2001 in O.S. No. 4212/95 (the.
first suit) inter a/ia praying for the dismissal of that suit on the ground th<:
same had become infructuous because of the subsequent and fresh notice of
termination which was. the subject matter of the third suit, namely,
0.S.No.5100/200 I.
E The said I.A. No. 20651/2001 for dismissal ofO.S.No.4212/95 came to
be rejected by the trial court on the ground that the same lacks in bona fide
•
and allowing the application would cause prejudice to the respondent with
regard to the continuation of the agency. The trial court also held since the
injunction granted in the first suit had became final, same cannot be either
F defeated or vacated by seeking the dismissal of the suit.

The said order of the trial court came to be once again challenged
before the High Court in the above noted revision petition and the
miscellaneous petitions. The High Court agreeing with the conclusions of the
trial court also came to the conclusion that the dismissal of O.S. No.4212/95
G on the ground that the same had become infructuous would result in vacating
the order of interim injunction earlier granted in the said suit. The High Court
also agreed with the trial court that such dismissal on the ground of suit
having become infructuous would prejudice the respondent, hence, dismissed
the petition.

H It is against the said order of the High Court confirming the order of
._;(·

SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.,. MACHADO IJROS. IHEGDE .JJ 589
the trial court, the appellants are before us in these appeals. A
Shri C.A. Sundram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the courts below failed to notice that a suit for declaration for
the continuance of an agency which is in the nature of a personal service is
barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. He also contended a suit
for mere dee laration is also barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief B
Act. He further contended at the most the respondent-plaintiff could have
sought for damages in the event of it establishing wrongful termination and
would not be entitled to a decree for specific performance to continue the
agency. He also submitted since under the terms of the agency agreement
itself a termination of the agreement is contemplated, the trial court could not C
have entertained a suit for declaration that such tennination is bad and further
in aid of such a relief grant a mandatory order of injunction directing the
continuation of agency during the pendency of the suit. He submitted the
reasons given by the two courts below that dismissal of the suit would in
effect amount to dissolving of the injunction granted as an interim measure
is per se illegal because no suit could be continued only for the purpose of D
continuing an interim order. He also challenged the finding of the two courts
below that the application filed by the appellant for dismissal of the suit is
not a bona fide application.

The learned counsel relied on Order 7 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 6, Order
15 Rules 1 and 3 and Order 23 Rule I of CPC to point out that apart from E
Section 151 of CPC even under those provisions of the Code there is a duty
cast on the trial court to put an end to a litigation if the same had become
infructuous. In the instant case, the learned counsel pointed out that there was
only one agency agreement and in exercise of the right conferred by the
tennination clause in the said agreement the appellant had terminated the F
contract of agency of the respondent as far back as on 23.2.1995, but by
virtue of the interim order granted by the courts below the appellant had to
continue the same much against the interest of the appellant. Be that as it
may, the learned counsel submits that a fre.sh cause of action had arisen
which required the said agency agreement again to be terminated. Hence a
notice of termination dated 23.8.2001 was issued nearly six years after the G
first letter of termination which in fact and in law substituted the first letter
of term inatjon. Consequent to which the first letter of termination became
non existent and consequently the suit filed on that basis became infructuous
because the cause of acfion, if any, which gave rise to the first suit disappeared.
Hence, the courts below ought to have accepted the application of the appellant H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.CR.

A for the dismissal of the suit. The learned counsel also contended both the
courts below have not given any finding as to the effect of the second
termination notice vis-a-vis the existence of cause of action to continue the
first suit and proceeded erroneously on the ground that dismissal of said suit
would make the injunction ineffective, as if the interim order in a proceeding
can survive after the disposal of the main matter or that the main matter can
B be kept pending to continue the interim order.

Shri P.R .Kovilan learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported
the orders of the courts below and contended that the same are just and
equitable. Learned counsel also submitted that a revision against the dismissal ;.!.
C of an application under section 151 was not maintainable before the High
Court because the same was an appealabie order. He also supported the
orders of the two courts below that the application filed for dismissal of the
suit lacked bona fides and the appellant having failed to get the injunction in
the said suit vacated has resorted to this mode of getting the injunction
vacated. He submitted if the plaint showed the existence of a cause of action
D on the date of filing of the same, subsequent disappearance of cause of action
would not make the suit bad or infructuous. He also contended allowing of
the application of the appellant and dismissing the first suit as having become
infructuous would cause great prejudice to the respondent.

From the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, we notice
E his challenge to the impugned orders of the courts below is based on the
following grounds :

(a) A suit challenging a notice of termination of an agency which is
in the nature of a personal contract is not maintainable.
F (b) A suit simplicitor for declaration without seeking any
consequential relief is also not maintainable.
(c) Suit O.S.No.4212/95 having become infructuous with the eclipse
of cause of action mentioned in the said plaint the court ought
to have dismissed or disposed of the said suit as contemplated
G under the various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code like
Order 7 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 6, Order 15 Rules I and 2 and
Order 23 Rule I.
(d) At any rate when the appellant brought to the notice of the court
by way of an <Jpplication under Section 151 of CPC that the
H original notice which is the foundation of the suit O.S.No.4212/
SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD." MACHADO BROS. [HEGDE .J.] 591
95 having been superceded by a subsequent termination notice A
in regard to the very same contract of agency, the courts below
ought to have in the interest of justice allowed the same and
dismissed the suit as having become infructuous, keeping open
the rights of the parties to be adjudicated in the other two suits
pending before it.
B
From the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, we notice
the same is based on the following grounds:

(a) A revision against the dismissal of the application filed under
section 151 before the High Court was not maintainable.
(b) The application for dismissal lacked bona jides. c
(c) The respondent will be put to great hardship and prejudice ifthe
said IA were to be allowed and its first suit is dismissed on the
ground of having become infructuous because the protection of
the interim order granted to it wou Id be lost.
D
Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and perused
the records, we notice that the first three arguments addressed by the appellant
though seems to indicate some legal backing still will not be entertained by
us because that was not the basis on which application l.A.2065l/2001 was
filed by the appellant before the trial court. The only ground on which the
said application was filed is that, in view of the subsequent tennination E
notice the first termination notice disappeared consequently the cause of
action also disappeared. This application did not question the maintainability
• of the suit on the grounds which are urged now before us nor the various
provisions of CPC now urged before us ever urged in the said application,
and that does not also seem to be the argument of the appellant before the F
courts below as could be seen from the contents of the two impugned orders.
We do not think we should permit the appellant to raise these grounds for
which sufficient fou.ndation has not been laid in the pleadings and arguments
before the courts below. At t.he same time, we are unable to accept the
argument of the learned counsel for the respondent who contended that the
revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was not G
maintainable because of the availability ofa remedy by way of an appeal. 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 t~e learned counsel H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R.

A appearing for the respondent been able to point out any such provision
therefore, the said argument has to be rejected.

This leaves us to consider the merits of the application filed by the
appellant for dismissing the first suit O.S. No. 4212/95 which is on the
-ground of the same having become infructuous. Before proceeding further to
B consider this question, we must notice the fact that the respondent has not
disputed the fact that there is only one agreement of agency dated 3.6.1988
and that the said agency came to be first terminated by a notice from the
appellant dated 23rd February, 1995 which was the basis of the suit
O.S.No.4212/95 arid the very same agency came to be terminated once again '
~

C by another notice dated 23.8.2001. It is also not disputed nor is it the basis
of the orders of the two courts below that by the issuance of the second
notice, the earlier termination notice dated 23.2.1995 stood superseded. If
that be so, the question for our consideration is : whether the said suit O.S.
No. 4212/95 is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous or, as has
been held by the two courts below, whether the said suit should be kept
D pending to keep alive the interlocutory order made in the said suit. The
further question to be considered is: can an application to dismiss the suit on
the ground of same having become infructuous, be dismissed on the ground
that the said application lacks bona fide or that the same would cause prejudice
to the plaintiff because of the consequences of dismissal of that suit.

E Coming to the maintainability of I.A.No. 20651/2001, the learned
counsel for the appellant in suppo11 of his contention that an application
under Section 151 CPC for the dismissal of the suit on the ground of same
having become infructuous was maintainable, has relied on number of
judgments. In Mis. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd Barabanki
p (UP.) v. Kanhayala/ Bhargava and Ors., AIR (1966) SC 1899 while
discussing the scope of Section Is 1·CPC this court after considering various
previous judgments' on the point held:

"The inherent power of a cou11 is in addition to and complementary
to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power
G will not be exercise if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into
conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication
conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express
provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to
a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of
the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said
H
·~

SHIPP!NGCORPN. OF !ND1A LTD. 1·. MACHADO BROS. [HEGDE ,J] 593
provisions. Whatever limitations are imposed by construction on the A
~
provisions of S. 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted
power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make
a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court."

From the above, it is clear that if there is no specific provision which
prohibits the grant of relief sought in an application filed under Section 151 B
of the Code, the courts have all the necessary powers under Section 151 CPC
to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of court. Therefore,
the court exercising the power under section 151 CPC first has to consider
'
-+. whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other provisions
____, of the Code and if there is no such prohibition then the Court will consider
whether such power should be exercised or not on the basis of facts mentioned
c
in the application.

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 D
continued solely for the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the
said suit.

. While examining this question we will have to consider whether the
court can take cognizance of a subsequent event to decide whether the pending
suit should be disposed of or kept alive. If so, can a defendant make an E
application under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the pending suit on the
ground the said suit has lost its cause of action. This Court in the case of
~ Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, [1975] 1 SCC
770 at para 4 has held thus:

"We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the F
,). jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into
being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic
to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged
to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally
clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the G
mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come
to coutt and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the
manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the
~ tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or
render inept the decretal remedy. Equality justifies bending the rules
of rrocedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is not violated, H
594 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A with a view to promote substantial justice - subject, of course, to the
absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can
we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated
facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power
exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course
in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations
B for applications of this equitable rule are myriad.

We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed
by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with
the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious
C cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the
proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously
obeyed."

In the very same case, this Court quoted with approval a judgment of
the Supreme Court of United States in Patterson v. State ofAlabama, 294 US
D 600 wherein it was laid down thus :

"We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate
jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment
under review but to make such deposition of the case as justice
requires. And in determining what justice does require, the Court is
E bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has
supervened since the judgment was entered."

Almost similar is the view taken by this Court in the case of JM
Biswas v. N.K. Bhattacharjee and Ors., (2002] 4 SCC 68 wherein this Court
held :
F
"The dispute raised in the case has lost its relevance due to passage
of time and subsequent events which have taken place during the
pendency of the litigation. In the circumstances, continuing this
litigation will be like flogging a dead horse. Such litigation, irrespective
of the result, will neither benefit the parties in the litigation nor will
G serve the interests of the Union."

Thus it is clear 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
H disposing of infructuous litigation. For the said purpose it will be open to the
SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD." MACHADO BROS. IHEGDE ,J.) 595

parties concerned to make an app.lication under Section 151 of CPC to bring A
to the notice of the court the facts 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 Iitigation has in fact become infructuous or not.

Having thus ui1derstood the law, we will now consider whether the B
courts were justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein
for dismissing the suit on the ground that the same had become infructuous.
In this process, we have already noticed that there seems to be no dispute that
.li... the original termination notice based on which first suit O.S. No. 4212/95
was filed, has since ceased to exist because of the subsequent termination C
notice issued on 23.8.2001, validity of which has already been challenged by
the respondent in the third suit.

While dismissing the application l.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 Jacks in bona D
fide and ifthe 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 E
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] 5 SCC 380
wherein it is held :

"Upon dismissal of the suit, the interlocutory order stood set
F
aside and that whatever was done to upset the status quo, was required
to be undone to the extent possible."

Therefore, in our opinion, the courts below erred in continuing an
infructuous suit just to keep the interlocutory order alive which in a manner G
of speaking amounts to putting the cart before the dead horse.

The next ground given by the courts below that the dismissal of the suit
wou Id prejudice the respondent, again on the ground of interlocutory order
getting dissolved, cannot also be sustained. If the suit in fact has become
infructuous consequences of dismissal of such suit cannot cause any prejudice H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the consequence should be to the contrary,
that is, such continuance of infructuous suit would cause prejudice to the
defendant.

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
B 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.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that continuation of
C a suit which has become infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action
would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice
requires such suit should be disposed of as having become infructuous. The
application under Section 151 of CPC in this regard is maintainable.

For the reasons stated above, these appeal succeeds. l.A.No.20651 of
D 2001 filed by the appellant in O.S.No.4212/95 is allowed. Consequentially
suit O.S.No.4212/95 pending in the court of City Civil Court at Chennai is
dismissed as having become infructuous. The appellant shall be entitled to
cost throughout.

B.K.M. Appeals allowed.