Rights Of Parties While Filing Suit Must Adapt To Significant Changes Which Occur During Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that while the rights of parties are generally determined by the circumstances existing at the time of filing a suit, courts must also consider significant changes that occur during the litigation process to ensure just and equitable outcomes.This observation came as the High Court set aside an eviction decree originally granted on...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that while the rights of parties are generally determined by the circumstances existing at the time of filing a suit, courts must also consider significant changes that occur during the litigation process to ensure just and equitable outcomes.
This observation came as the High Court set aside an eviction decree originally granted on the grounds of personal necessity, citing the death of the landlord as a pivotal event that invalidated the basis for the eviction.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, who presided over the case, observed that "the rights of the parties should be determined by reference to the date of institution of the suit or proceedings; however, this does not mean that events or happenings after the institution of the suit are to be ignored altogether."
The judgment highlighted the court's obligation to acknowledge and assess the impact of subsequent events on the relief sought in ongoing litigation. In this case, the deceased landlord, Nazir Ahmed Kakroo, a retired District Judge, had sought eviction to establish a lawyer's office in the disputed property—a necessity that ceased upon his death.
The Court reasoned that the principle of determining rights based on the situation at the time of filing does not prevent the Court from considering significant developments that arise during the litigation.
This approach, the court noted, aligns with the precedent set in Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) and another vs. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by L. Rs and another, where the Supreme Court recognized that courts must take into account subsequent events to ensure that the relief granted is just and relevant to the current circumstances.
The question of whether the court could consider changed circumstances also arose during the appeal process. In response, the court affirmed that it has the jurisdiction and responsibility to consider significant changes that occur during litigation to ensure that justice is served.
The court ruled that the death of the landlord fundamentally altered the situation, rendering the original necessity for eviction moot. The court stated, "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 High Court further distinguished this case from the precedent cited by the respondents, Kusum Lata Sharma v. Arvind Singh, 2023. In the latter, the eviction was based on the necessity of accommodating the landlord's family members, which justified the eviction even after the landlord's death.
However, in the present case, the eviction was sought solely for the landlord's personal use in establishing his legal practice, a necessity that did not extend to his reversioners. As Justice Sanjeev Kumar noted, "the requirement of the shop for the establishment of a lawyer's office was purely personal and specific to the landlord, which ceased to exist upon his death."
In conclusion, the High Court decided the question of law in favour of the appellants, ruling that the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were unsustainable. Consequently, the decrees of eviction issued by the lower courts were set aside.
Case Title: Aabid Nazir Zargar Vs Mehrajudin Kakroo
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 239