SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus MACHADO BROTHERS AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 25-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
i' 
MACHADO BROTHERS AND ORS. 
MARCH 25, 2004 
I: 
,. 
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 
.> 
c 
Application under Section 151 for dismissal of earlier suit as i11fh1ctuous-
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 
D the interim relief granted in favour of the plaintiff-Held, an infructuous suil 
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 
E respondent filed a suit seeking, inter alia, declaration that the termination 
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. 
F 
The appellant, by another notice dated 23.8.2001, again terminated 
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 
G Trial Court in the first suit of the respondent praying for dismissal of the 
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. 
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 
HELD: 1.1. lfthere is no specific provision which prohibits thegrant 
B 
c 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.