IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1. Union of India Ministry of Law & Justice & C.A.

Department of Legal Affairs

2. Dy. Salt Commissioner

3. Joint Secretary ….. APPLICANTS (orig. Defendants)

: VERSUS :

Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia …. RESPONDENT (orig. Plaintiff)

Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Aditya Thakkar,Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Adarsh Vyas, Ms. Rama Gupta, Mr. Dhaval Shetia and Ms.

Rupali Srivastav, for the Applicants.

Mr. Aditya Bapat with Mr. S.A.K. Najam-es-sani i/b. Maneksha & Sethna, for the Respondent.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Digitally signed by NEETA JUDGMENT RESD. ON: 5 MARCH 2026.

NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date:

2026.03.17

2 + 1 0 : 5 0 3 0 0 :39 JUDGMENT PRON. ON : 17 MARCH 2026.

JUDGMENT :

1) The Applicant-Union of India has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the Code) for assailing order dated 11 November 2022 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai rejecting Notice of Motion No. 3788 of 2016. The Motion was filed by the Applicants seeking dismissal of the Suit on the ground that the same is rendered infructuous with a further direction for handing over possession of the suit land by the Plaintiffs.

2) The Plaintiff is lessees in respect of large tract of land admeasuring 251 acres and 21 gunthas within the limits of Village- Kanjur, in the then south Salsette Taluka of Bombay Suburban District bearing Survey Nos.13,14, 19, 20,21,22 and 23 which is designated as ‘Plot No.(II) Arthur Salt Works’. Plaintiffs are also lessees in respect of another piece of land admeasuring 249 acres and 10 gunthas bearing Survey No. 169 of Village-Kanjur, which is designated as ‘Plot No. (III) Jenkins Salt Works’. Both the lands of Arthur Salt Works and Jenkins Salt Works were leased out to the Plaintiffs for a period of 99 years commencing from 15 October 1917 for the purpose of manufacture of salt. Considering the limited controversy involved in the present Application, it is not necessary to narrate occurrence of various events after execution of the lease deeds. Suffice it to note that the leases in respect of both the lands came to be terminated by the Applicants vide Orders dated 2 November

2004.

3) Plaintiff instituted Suit No. 1173 of 2005 in this Court challenging the termination Orders dated 2 November 2004 and is seeking a declaration that the lease agreements are valid, subsisting and binding on the Applicants. The Suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court and was renumbered as Civil Suit No. 6256 of 2005. During pendency of the Suit, the tenure of the lease expired on 14 October 2016. Upon expiry of tenure of lease, the Applicants took out Notice of Motion No. 3788 of 2016 seeking dismissal of the Suit on the ground that the cause of action had come to an end and that the suit had become infructuous. The Motion was resisted by the Plaintiff by filing affidavit in reply. By order dated 11 November 2022, the City Civil Court has proceeded to dismiss Notice of Motion No. 3788 of 2016, which is subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application.

4) I have heard Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Applicants. He submits that the whole cause of action for filing of the suit has come to an end on account of expiry of tenure of lease on 14 October 2016 and it is not necessary to adjudicate the issue of validity of order dated 2 November 2004 terminating the leases. He relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Versus. Machado Brothers and others ¹ in support of his contention that a suit which is rendered infructuous on account of cause of action coming to an end need not be kept pending and can be dismissed by the Court by having recourse to powers under Section 151 of the Code. That the Trial Court has erred in not exercising powers under