A Single bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar while dealing with a Civil Second Appeal observed that the Appellate Court can take into account subsequent events and consider their impact on the pending action.

The case setup before the court was that predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was tenant of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in respect of a shop situated in Main Chowk, Baramulla. The shop was stated to be under the tenancy of Late Nazir Ahmad Zargar since 14thSeptember, 2001 by virtue of a rent deed executed between the parties. With a view to seeking eviction of Late Nazir Ahmad Zargar, landlord filed a suit for ejectment before the Trial Court. The plaintiff before the trial court had setup case of “personal necessity”, who had retired as a judicial officer, was to set up advocate’s office in the suit shop to make his living comfortable. The suit was decreed by the trail court and subsequently the said decree was upheld by the Fist Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court the appellants filed the instant civil second appeal.

During the pendency of the Civil Second Appeal an additional substantial question of law was framed on the basis of an application filed by the appellant on pleading therein that during the pendency of the second appeal the sole plaintiff in the suit i.e. Nazir Ahmed Kakroo had passed away and, therefore, the “personal necessity”, if any, existing during his life time had ceased to exist. It was, thus, pleaded that due to subsequent event the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are required to be set aside. Both the parties were heard on the additional substantial question of law as well. 

The Court observed, “the respondents before this Court are the reversioners (brothers and sisters). It was not at all the case of the deceased landlord that he would require the suit shop for establishing his reversioners for earning their livelihood. The “personal necessity” pointed out by the deceased landlord was that he was a retired District Judge and, therefore, had a bona fide requirement of the suit shop for establishing his lawyer’s office. Obviously, this requirement ceased to exist on the death of the landlord”. 

The court further observed, “It is true that basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined by reference to the date of institution of the suit or proceedings and the suit/action should be tried at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the time of commencement of action. This, however, does not mean that events/happenings after the institution of the suit are required to be ignored altogether. It is always within the jurisdiction of the Court to take note of the changed circumstances and consider their impact on the pending action accordingly”.

The Court as such observed that Court of law may take into account subsequent events, inter alia, in the following circumstances: 

i) The relief claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate; or 

ii)  It is necessary to take notice of the subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation; or 

iii)  It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice. 

The Court also relied upon case titled as Mst. Noora Bibi v. Sujan Singh Rally (MA No.54/2015 decided on 15th May, 2023), JKJ ONLINE 84554. 

The court as such held that in view of the subsequent event i.e. death of the landlord, bona fide requirement of the shop for establishment of a lawyer’s office has ceased to exist. Since the suit was not for eviction of the defendant on the bona fide requirement of his dependants or even the reversioners, as such, the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below cannot be maintained. In the absence of specific plea claiming eviction of the appellants on the ground of “personal necessity” of the legal heirs/dependants of the landlord- Nazir Ahmed Kakroo, the respondents, who are reversioners, cannot be permitted to continue with the suit. The reversioners of Late Nazir Ahmed Kakroo, who have claimed to have succeeded to his estate including the suit shop, if they require the suit shop for bona fide personal necessity, may have a fresh cause of action to file suit for eviction against the appellants. 

The appeal as such was allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by both Trail Court and Appellate court were set aside.