IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a suit can be dismissed as infructuous when the cause of action ceases to exist due to subsequent events, and that the court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is preferred by Original Plaintiffs challenging order dismissing the Suit as infructuous by allowing Notice of Motion taken out by Original Defendant Nos.1 to 5. The order impugned is dated 19th January, 2016 passed in S.C. Suit No.5823 of 2006 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai. All the Respondents are Original Defendants in the same chronological order as given in the title cause. The Original Plaintiff predecessor of present Appellants/Plaintiffs filed Suit mainly against Defendant No.6 a partnership firm for declaration that Agreement dated 21st September, 1993 executed between Defendant No.6 and the Original Plaintiff is valid and binding upon all the parties. The other prayer clause was to direct the Defendant No.6 to perform it's part of the said Agreement by getting the same signed by Defendant Nos.1 to 5. Other were interim prayers seeking directions restraining Defendants from creating third party interest.

2. The facts in short are that the Original Plaintiff entered into an Agreement in the Defendant No.6 of partnership firm for sale of the suit land admeasuring 1711.3 sq. mtrs. that is a part of larger property bearing CTS No.138, 138/1 to 4, Akruli village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai owned by Defendant Nos.1 to 5. On 1st October, 1992 Defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed five different Agreements in favour of Defendant No.6 and agreed to sale and transfer their undivided right, title and interest in the Suit Property in favour of the Defendant No.6. The Defendant Nos.1 to 5 also executed a Power of Attorney on the same date in favour of Defendant Nos.7 & 8 happens to be partner of the Defendant No.6.

3. Defendant No.7 thereafter executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 10th March, 1993 in favour of the Original Plaintiff in respect of the said larger property including the Suit Property.

4. On 21st September, 1993, The Defendant No.6 executed an Agreement of Sale in respect of the Suit Property in favour of the Original Plaintiff and on the same day the Defendant No.8 in the capacity of a partner of the Defendant No.6 also executed and Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the Original Plaintiff in respect of the larger portion.

5. It is case of the Plaintiff that on 1st October, 2005 he came across a public notice published by Defendant Nos.1 to 5 investigate the title of the Suit Property and calling for objections. On that the Plaintiff approached Defendant No.8 & asked him to lodge the objection on behalf of the Defendant No.6.

6. The Defendant No.9 also filed written statement adopting the contents in the written statement filed by the Defendant No.5. It is the case of the Defendant No.9 that Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have conveyed the Suit Property by a Registered Conveyance dated 1st December, 2006 in favour of the Defendant No.10, wherein Defendant No.9 is a confirming party. He also took ground of limitation. That there were five Agreements allegedly executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 5 all dated 1st October, 1992 which were terminated by them in 1994 itself and the said fact was in the knowledge of the Defendant No.6 and Original Plaintiff since 1994. The Agreement dated 21st September, 1993 is an unregistered Agreement and merely an Agreement for assignment of the said five unregistered Agreements dated 1st October, 1992 etc., and prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

7. As stated the Suit came to be filed on 16th January, 2006 with the prayers as already stating Original Plaintiff Raychand Shah died during the pendency of the Suit and the present Plaintiffs were joined as legal heirs of deceased Raychand Shah. On 6th September, 2006 a deed came to be executed in respect of Defendant No.6 partnership firm of the retirement and admission by a deed Plaintiff No.1(c) joined the Defendant No.6 firm as a partner with effect from on 1st June, 2006. Latter on Defendant No.6 firm came to be dissolved on 1st December, 2006. The Plaintiff 1(c) became proprietor of Defendant No.6 firm o