Bombay HC: Whether the court can keep infructuous suit pending in the hope that a new cause of action may later be introduced by amendment?

 Amendment plea rejected

One of the respondent’s key arguments was that he had moved, or intended to move, for amendment of the plaint to incorporate a prayer for renewal of lease. The High Court rejected this line of defence​

The court noted that as on the date of the impugned order, namely 11 November 2022, no amendment application was before the trial court. It further recorded that the chamber summons for amendment was filed only on 30 June 2025, almost three years later, and till date the plaint did not contain any prayer for renewal.​

The court held that whether a suit has become infructuous must be decided on the basis of the cause of action actually pleaded, not on the basis of a party’s future plans. A dead suit, the court said in substance, cannot be kept alive indefinitely in the hope that a new cause of action may later be introduced by amendment.

Read full article here: Click here.

Ratio of the judgment

The ratio of the decision is that a civil suit whose pleaded cause of action has disappeared because of a supervening event may be dismissed as infructuous under Section 151 CPC, provided no specific provision of the Code covers the situation. A court cannot retain such a suit merely because dismissal would bring an interim order to an end.​

The decision also reinforces that future or proposed amendments cannot justify retaining an otherwise infructuous suit on the file. The court must examine the reliefs actually claimed and the cause of action actually pleaded as on the relevant date.

Print Page