Subsequent events in pending proceedings may affect relief, and proof procedures remain flexible based on justice and the facts.

Subsequent events arising during the pendency of revision or appeal may be considered where they materially affect entitlement to relief or the moulding of effective remedy. The court is not confined rigidly to the original date of institution if later facts or changes in law make that necessary to reach a just result. No inflexible rule requires a separate formal enquiry in every case based on subsequent events: if facts are admitted or deemed admitted, proof may be unnecessary; otherwise the court may use affidavit evidence, oral evidence, or remand for enquiry, depending on the demands of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether subsequent events occurring during the pendency of a revision or appeal can be taken into account in determining the entitlement to relief. (ii) Whether pleas based on subsequent events must invariably be proved by a separate formal enquiry before they can be acted upon.

Issue (i): Whether subsequent events occurring during the pendency of a revision or appeal can be taken into account in determining the entitlement to relief.

Analysis: The right to relief is ordinarily judged as on the date of institution, but an exception exists where later facts or changes in law have a material bearing on entitlement or on the moulding of relief. In such a situation, the court may take cautious cognizance of subsequent events so that the remedy granted remains just and effective.

Conclusion: Subsequent events may be taken into account where they materially affect the relief to be granted.

Issue (ii): Whether pleas based on subsequent events must invariably be proved by a separate formal enquiry before they can be acted upon.

Analysis: There is no rigid rule that pleadings and proof must always proceed in two successive stages in every case. If the facts pleaded are admitted or deemed admitted by non-traverse, proof may not be required. Depending on the nature of the allegations, the court may receive affidavit evidence under Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or require oral evidence and, if necessary, remit the matter for enquiry. The choice of procedure depends on the facts of the case and the demands of justice.

Conclusion: No inflexible requirement of a separate formal trial applies to every plea of subsequent events; the procedure is flexible and may range from affidavit evidence to oral evidence or remand.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the later events on both sides, with the revisional court to decide the manner of proof and then dispose of the case according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may consider subsequent events arising during the pendency of proceedings where they materially affect relief, and the mode of proving such events is not rigidly fixed but depends on the nature of the facts and the requirements of justice.

---