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 cross- examination 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) 16-08-2010 JUDGE manju