Chet Ram (deceased) through LRs Vs. Ami Chand and others RSA No. 326 of 2016 Reserved on: 22.7.2026 28.7.2026 Present: Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr Mohinder Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP No. 26774 of 2025 The applicants/defendants have filed the present application under Section 151 CPC for bringing the subsequent events on record. It has been asserted that late Sh. Chet Ram had filed a civil suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction who had purchased the property out of his share. He had sold the land measuring 0-02-51 hectares out of Khasra No. 1354 and 1355 to Smt. Mridula through a registered sale deed on 16.12.2004. There was an old structure which was demolished and a three-storied building was constructed during the pendency of the litigation. Chet Ram is not entitled to the injunction as prayed for by him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the subsequent events be taken on record. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability and suppression of material facts. It was asserted that the application has been filed to mislead the Court and prolong the disposal of the main Appeal. The facts sought to be brought on record are neither subsequent nor newly discovered. The existence and execution of the Sale Deed dated 16.12.2004 was fully disclosed before the learned Trial Court by all the contesting parties, and this fact was incorporated in the statement of original plaintiff-Chet Ram, Dhani Ram (DW1) and Om Prakash (DW2). The execution of the sale deed was duly admitted by all the parties. The applicants want to reintroduce the facts which were part of the record of the learned Trial Court. The respondents No.1 and 3 have alienated the suit property by way of registered sale deeds dated 22.12.2015 and 12.07.2024, respectively. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the records carefully. The applicants are seeking to bring on record the factum of execution of a Sale Deed dated 16.12.2004. The record shows that the civil suit was filed before the learned Trial Court on 02.12.2003 and was decided on 10.12.2012. The facts sought to be brought on record had transpired during the pendency of the civil suit before the learned Trial Court and cannot be said to be a subsequent event which had taken place during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. Moreover, the record shows that Chet Ram (PW1) had admitted in his cross-examination that Guddi Devi had constructed a house and he had not filed any suit against her. Dhani Ram (DW1) stated that the plaintiff sold the land to Guddi Devi, who had started the construction of the wall. Similarly, his witness Om Prakash (DW2) stated that the plaintiff had also sold the land to Guddi Devi, who was carrying out the construction. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly shows that the sale made in favour of Guddi Devi was disclosed to the Court in the statements on oath. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256: 2002 SCC OnLine SC 96 that the rights and liabilities are crystallised on the date of filing of the suit, but the Court can take note of subsequent events if they are brought on record by following the proper procedure by way of amendment of the pleadings. It was observed at page 262: 11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders [(1975) 1 SCC 770: AIR 1975 SC 1409] this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may, in such cases, bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or rule of fair play is violated, for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. 12. Such subsequent event may be one purely of law or founded on facts. In the former case, the court may take judicial notice of the event and, before acting thereon, put the parties on notice of how the change in law is going to affect the rights and obligations of the parties and modify or mould the course of litigation or the relief so as to bring it in conformity with the law. In the latter case, the party relying on the subsequent event, which consists of facts not beyond the pale of controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Such subsequent event, the Court may permit being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment, as it would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties. In Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar [(1953) 1 SCC 456: AIR 1953 SC 235] this Court has held that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; without the amendment of the pleadings the Court would not be entitled to modify or alter the relief. In Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho [(1898) 25 IA 195 (PC)], Their Lordships observed that, as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. 13. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events, especially at the appellate stage, came up for the consideration of a Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court presided over by Justice Sinha (as His Lordship then was) in Chhote Khan v. Mohd. Obedulla Khan [AIR 1953 Nag 361]. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) held, on a review of judicial opinion, that an action must be tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of the action. No doubt, courts “can” and sometimes “must” take notice of subsequent events, but that is done merely “inter partes” to shorten litigation, but not to give to a defendant an advantage because a third party has acquired the right and title of the plaintiff. The doctrine itself is of an exceptional character only to be used in very special circumstances. It is all the more strictly applied in those cases where there is a judgment under appeal. His Lordship quoted the statement of law made by Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee, J. in a series of cases that merely because the plaintiff loses his title pendente lite is no reason for allowing his adversary to win if the corresponding right has not vested in the adversary but in a third party. In the case at hand, the defendant-appellant has simply stated the factum of proceedings initiated by HUDA against the plaintiff-respondent in an affidavit very casually filed by him. He has not even made a prayer to the court to take notice of such subsequent event and mould the relief accordingly, or to deny the relief to the plaintiff- respondent as allowed to him by the judgment under appeal, much less sought for an amendment of the pleadings. The subsequent event urged by the defendant-appellant is basically a factual event and cannot be taken cognisance of unless brought to the notice of the court in accordance with the established rules of procedure, which, if done, would have afforded the plaintiff-respondent an opportunity of meeting the case now sought to be set up by the appellant. We do not think this Court would be justified in taking notice of a fact sought to be projected by the appellant in a very cavalier manner. The fact remains that the present one is a landlord-tenant dispute and we cannot upset the relief granted by the courts below and the High Court to the plaintiff-respondent by relying on the doctrine of eviction by title paramount as it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated by HUDA against the plaintiff-respondent have achieved a finality or are such proceedings wherein the plaintiff-respondent cannot possibly have any sustainable defence. Therefore, it is impermissible to act upon the applications filed under Section 151 of CPC for taking note of the subsequent events, and the present application cannot be allowed on this ground as well. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present application and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. CMP No. 17771 of 2026 The present application has been filed for filing the English translation of relevant documents. The documents are in Hindi. Therefore, a prayer has been made to get the documents translated by the official translator on payment of the expenses. Since the documents are admittedly in Hindi, the present application is allowed, and the official Translator of the Court is directed to translate the documents on deposit of the expenses by the applicant. The present application stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th July, 2026 (Chander)