Kishanlal Rajaram vs Zapulal Ramlal and Others

Nevaskar, J.—This order will dispose of 3 revision (sic) No. 1, 7 and 8 of 1953.

Civil Revision No. 1 of 1953 arises out of (sic) brought by Zapulal against Kishanlal for (sic) of his dues as a co-sharer in a Jagir (sic) and for the payment of whatever would (sic) due against Kishanlal.

(sic)Civil Revision Petitions No. 7 and 8 arise (sic) two separate suits brought by Plaintiff (sic) against Zapulal for the recovery of pos-(sic) of certain lands claimed by Plaintiff (sic) as his Inam Jirat.

(sic) the progress of these three suits, (sic) Kishanlal in Civil Suit No. 5 of (sic) an application dated 8-12-1952 for (sic) of his pleadings in view of the facts (sic) for resumption of Jagirs in accordance (sic) provisions of Jagirdari Abolition Act had (sic) He alleged that in view of the decla-(sic) aforesaid jurisdiction to determine and disputes between the parties in this case (sic) exclusively in the authorities mentioned (sic) and Civil Courts have now no juris-(sic) and that either the Jagir Commissioner or the Government was a necessary party to this suit.

In Civil Suit No. 21 of 1949 Defendant Zapulal submitted an application on the very date for amendment of his written statement alleging that in view of the fact that Madhya Bharat Government had in pursuance of the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Jagirdari Abolition Act Samvat 2008 assumed Jagirs the Plaintiff has no longer any right to claim possession and that the Government of Madhya Bharat was a necessary party to the suit.

Similar application by Zapulal was submitted, in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1949.

The application in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1949 was opposed by Zapulal and the applications in the other two suits were opposed by Kishanlal. The trial court passed an order rejecting the applications for amendments on considerations which can be material only when merits of those contentions are to be considered and not for the purpose of considering the propriety of an application for amendment of pleadings. The applications were directed for inclusion of the allegations pertaining to the facts and events which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit and which according to the applicants had a material bearing on the results of the suits.

It is now well settled that the Court can take into consideration subsequent events and mould relief and decide matters in view of those events. It is held in - ''Nari Mian v. Ambica Singh'' AIR 1917 Cal 716 (A), as follows:

Ordinarily the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stand at the date of its institution. But this principle is not of universal application, and in a long series of decisions...the doctrine has been recognised that there are cases where it is imcumbent upon a Court of justice to take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and to mould its decree according to the circumstances as they stand at the time the decree is made. This principle will be applied where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or that it is necessary to base the decision of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties.

This principle is recently applied in cases reported in - ''Meghaji Mohanji v. Anant Pandurang'' AIR 1948 Bom 396 (B), and - AIR 1948 1 (Nagpur) .

The trial court held that it had to consider the merits of this contention and to see as to what bearing the fact of Notification had upon the rights of the parties.

This clearly is erroneous. The order of the lower court thus being vitiated by reason of irregularity in not considering the exact point for consideration before it is set aside and the applications for amendment in the three suits submitted by the Defendants in those suits are allowed. The Defendant is permitted to amend his pleadings on the lines suggested in those applications.

Under the circumstances of these cases and in view of the fact that the same parties submitted the applications and opposed similar ones for amendment I leave the parties to bear their costs of these revision applications in all these three cases.