[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman Clark Alias Suman Batra And ... vs Sunny Singh Clark And Another on 30 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6096-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.01.2026
Suman Clark alias Suman Batra and Another ... Petitioners
Versus
Sunny Singh Clark and Another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure
P-10) whereby the application filed by the petitioners herein for bringing on
record subsequent events after the passing of the order dated 11.03.2025
passed in CR-2403-2024, was dismissed and the application filed by the
respondents under Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was
allowed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a suit for declaration averring therein that they are exclusive
owners in possession of the properties left behind by Jimmy Varajendra Clark,
father of plaintiff-respondents, with further declaration that the defendant-
petitioners herein do not have any concern with the suit properties and
consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners not to
alienate the suit property by way of sale, gift, mortgage or to interfere in
possession of the plaintiff-respondents. In the plaint the properties have been
enlisted under 10 separate headings. The case set up by the plaintiff-
respondents was that they are already in possession of the properties as they
have been managing the same since their father resided in England. As far as
the properties at Patiala are concerned, defendant-petitioner No.1 had started
taking rent from the tenants without any right and was threatening that she
was wife of Jimmy Varajendra Clark and after his death she had every right to
collect the rent. It was further the case set up that defendant-petitioner No.2
was the illegitimate son of Jimmy Varajendra Clark. Therefore, the suit for
declaration. Written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioners herein
stating that after the divorce with Jagdeep Kaur i.e. mother of the plaintiff-
respondents, Jimmy Varajendra Clark had solemnized his marriage with
defendant-petitioner No.1 herein. A Will dated 14.02.2009 was also set up
alleged to have been executed by Jimmy Varajendra Clark in favour of
defendant-petitioner No.1. No replication was filed. After framing of the
issues an application was filed by plaintiff-respondents for directing the
defendant-petitioners to disclose the amount of rent and particulars of tenants
from whom the rent was being received. The said application was allowed
vide order dated 22.08.2019 by the Trial Court. The defendant-petitioners
herein filed CR-6369-2021 against the said order which CR-6369-2021 was
disposed off by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2021 holding as under :
"3. In the aforesaid premise, order dated 22.08.2021
(Annexure P-1) which is under challenge in the revision
petition, is modified to the extent that subject to an
application being filed, after compliance of the rest of
directions given by the trial Court, the same shall be
disposed of by passing fresh order qua attachment of the
rent.
4. Disposed of, accordingly.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of."
3. On the basis of the aforesaid order, an application was filed for
recalling the order of attachment dated 22.08.2021 which application was
dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2024. The said order was
thereafter challenged by the defendant-petitioners before this Court in CR-
2403-2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2025. However, the
defendant-petitioners were given liberty to bring any subsequent events to the
notice of the Court concerned. Strangely, instead of filing any application for
amendment of the pleadings bringing the subsequent events on record, an
application was filed for bringing on record subsequent events. An application
was also filed yet again by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 36 CPC for
recovery of rent received by the defendant-petitioners though their application
already stood allowed vide order dated 22.08.2019 which till date stands. The
modification, which was ordered vide order dated 02.12.2021 passed in CR-
6369-2021, was only to the effect that in case the application is filed, the Trial
Court would dispose off the same by passing a fresh order qua the attachment
of rent. The said application stood dismissed by the Trial Court on 22.02.2024
and the order was affirmed by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025. Infact,
the order dated 22.08.2019 stands as such without any modification.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents' states that the
application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 36 CPC was
wrongly filed and that there was no requirement for filing a fresh application
and seeks permission to withdraw the same.
5. In view of the above, the plaintiff-respondents are permitted to
withdraw the application under Section 36 CPC and the revision qua order
dated 16.07.2025 to the extent of dealing with the application under Section
36 CPC stands allowed and the application is dismissed as withdrawn. Hence,
challenge to the impugned order remains only qua the application for bringing
on record the subsequent events.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that
since this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in CR-2403-2024 had
given liberty to the defendant-petitioners to bring the subsequent events to the
notice of the Court concerned, hence an application was filed sans any
reference to any provisions of law for bringing on record the subsequent
events. In the same application reply was also filed to the application under
Section 36 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondents.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has
contended that in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 there is no procedure for
bringing on record subsequent events by filing a simpliciter application sans
any reference to any provisions of law.
8. Heard.
9. Vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in CR-2403-2024 it was
stated that out of 13 properties 07 were in a dilapidated state and were vacant
and no rent was being received from them and only an amount of ₹20,000/-
was being received as rent from the remaining properties. Hence, liberty was
given to the defendant-petitioners to bring any subsequent events to the notice
of the Court concerned. Rather than filing an application for modification or
clarification of order dated 22.08.2019 vide which rent was ordered to be
attached and instead of filing any application for amendment of the pleadings,
an application was filed without any reference to any provision of law. The
subsequent events qua which liberty was given were noticed in para 7 of the
order dated 11.03.2025. The liberty was given in view of the contentions of
learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents therein that out of 13 properties
07 were in dilapidated state and were vacant and no rent was being received
and that only an amount of ₹20,000/- was being received. However, in the
application there is no reference to 07 dilapidated properties or their details.
Rather, in one paragraph it has simply been stated that some of the moveable
properties are in dilapidated state.
10. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide
order dated 16.07.2025 while allowing the second application filed by the
plaintiff-respondents under Section 36 CPC. As noticed above, the order dated
16.07.2025, as far as the application under Section 36 CPC is concerned, is
set aside in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-
respondents that he withdraws the application. Qua the application for
bringing on record the subsequent events, the same has rightly been rejected
as noticed by the Trial Court that the application is reiteration of the earlier
contentions which application was dismissed on 22.02.2024. It is also noticed
that no significant or material event had been highlighted in the application.
Infact, having made a statement before this Court in CR-2403-2024 that out
of 13 properties 07 were in dilapidated state and were vacant, strangely there
is not even a whisper of the said fact in the application now filed. It appears
that the defendant-petitioners herein are only trying to circumvent the orders
passed by the Trial Court and this Court and are not wanting to comply with
the same and totally frivolous applications are being filed one after the other
which is leading to waste of precious judicial time not only for the Trial Court
but for this Court as well.
11. This Court refrains itself from imposing any costs, on the request
of learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners who states that the defendant-
petitioners have no other means of income.
12. In view of the above, the present revision petition qua application
for bringing on record the subsequent events, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
30.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
