Subsequent events in pending proceedings may justify moulding relief, but not a mechanical direction to start fresh litigation.

In pending writ or appellate proceedings, subsequent events may be considered if they materially affect entitlement to relief or the moulding of relief, but the court should still decide the existing matter fairly on the revised record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in refusing to decide the writ petition on merits and directing the landlord to start afresh merely because of later developments during pendency. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the governing principles on subsequent events and moulding of relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to decide the writ petition on merits and directing the landlord to file a fresh release application on the ground that subsequent events had occurred during the long pendency of the matter.

Analysis: The established rule is that the rights of the parties are ordinarily determined as on the date of institution, but appellate and writ courts may take cautious cognizance of subsequent events if they have a material bearing on the right to relief or on the moulding of relief. Such consideration is permissible where it would shorten litigation and promote substantial justice, provided fairness to both sides is preserved and no procedural rule is violated. The Court noted that the High Court, instead of examining the challenge on merits and applying these principles to the existing record, had declined to decide the dispute and relegated the appellant to a fresh round of litigation.

Conclusion: The High Court's approach was not justified, and the matter ought to have been decided on the existing proceedings with due regard to subsequent events.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing principles on subsequent events and moulding of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A court seised of pending proceedings may take cautious cognizance of subsequent events that materially affect the entitlement to relief and may mould the relief accordingly, but it should not avoid adjudication by mechanically directing a fresh proceeding where the existing matter can be determined fairly on the revised facts.

---