The High Court dismissed a petition seeking leave to amend an eviction petition after the death of the original petitioner. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal, ruling that since the tenant was put on notice during cross-examination that no amendment had been filed, allowing it now would unfairly fill a lacuna in the trial record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.3409 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3409 of 2010 Date of decision : 16-08-2010
Tejinder Singh Bains @ Tejinderjit Singh Bains and another
.... Petitioners
VERSUS
Vijay Kumar
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
Office has reported that service is complete upon the respondent. On second call, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent.
In the present case, Dr. Malwinder Kaur Bains, mother of the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent – tenant. During the pendency of the proceedings, Dr. Malwinder Kaur Bains left for her heavenly abode and her two sons were brought on record as legal representatives. Due to this change in the circumstances, an application was filed by the petitioners to make following amendment in the eviction petition:-
“that the petitioners i.e. legal representative of the petitioner do not own and possess any other accommodation for the business to be run by Maninder Jit Singh Bains son of Smt. Malwinder Kaur Bains.”
CR No.3409 of 2010
-2-
This amendment has been denied by the trial Court on the ground that on 23.01.2008, when application for impleading the legal representative was filed, the amendment was not sought and there is no explanation furnished by the petitioner – landlord for such a delay. Furthermore, regarding the proposed amendment, a question was put to the petitioners in the cross-examination, therefore, if such amendment is allowed, it will amount to filling the lacuna, and the gain made by the tenant in cross-examination shall stand demolished.
At this stage, counsel states that earlier, amendment was not filed due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel. Be that as it may, once a specific plea was put to the witness in the crossexamination and due to which he became aware of the shortcoming, needless to say that it will amount to filling the lacuna.
I have perused the cross-examination. It has been specifically put to the witness in the cross-examination that no amendment application had been filed. Thus once the witness has lost a material point in the cross-examination, later his application for amendment cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna.
Hence, no interference is warranted to disturb the discretion validly exercised by the Rent Controller.
Dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE
16-08-2010 manju
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's refusal to allow an amendment in an eviction petition after the legal representatives of the landlord were impleaded.
Whether allowing the amendment would amount to filling a lacuna in light of the tenant's cross-examination preparation.
Whether the delay in filing the amendment was caused by inadvertence of counsel without valid explanation.
Tejinder Singh Bains and another
Vijay Kumar
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
