Sunita And Others vs Ran Singh And Another on 28 July, 2009

C.R.No.4129 of 2009


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                        C.R. No.4129 of 2009.
                                        Decided on 28 July , 2009.


Sunita and others .

                                                         .. Petitioner

                  VERSUS


Ran Singh and another.

                                                      .. Respondents


CORAM:            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI


PRESENT           Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
                  for the petitioners.


M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Defendants-petitioners are sons and daughters of

Sher Singh against whom Ran Singh and Lakhmi, respondents have

filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

13.02.2004. Sher Singh has not taken up plea in the written

statement regarding the nature of the property being a coparcenary

property. The petitioners have been impleaded as defendants in the

suit filed by the respondents alleging that the property in dispute had

been intentionally got attached by Sher Singh to jeopardize the rights

of the plaintiffs, in a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The

…1
C.R.No.4129 of 2009

contesting defendant Sher Singh (who has not been impleaded as a

party in this petition) has not taken up the plea regarding the property

being joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property. The defendants-

petitioners who are not even party to the agreement of sale dated

13.02.2004, seek to amend the written statement after the evidence

of the plaintiffs is over to incorporate the plea in their written

statement that the property is coparcenary property and that

defendant No.1, Sher Singh, their father, did not have any authority

to enter into the agreement of sale. The plea, which is sought to be

taken by the respondents, cannot be permitted as (1) no amendment

can be permitted after the commencement of the suit; (2) the

amendment is likely to change the nature of the suit; (3) the

amendment does not appear to be necessary for the decision of the

case as it has been taken up by the persons who are not signatory of

the agreement of sale; (4) the plea sought to be taken is contrary to

the stand of the main contesting defendant in a suit for specific

performance; and (5) in case the amendment is allowed, at this

stage, the entire scenario will be changed and the rights of the

plaintiffs will be prejudiced regarding the onus which they seem to

have already discharged.

In view of the circumstances, no ground is made

out for interfering in the order passed and the present revision

petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this revision petition or the

application of the petitioners for amendment by the trial Court will,

…2
C.R.No.4129 of 2009

however, not prejudice their rights to establish the nature of the

property in accordance with law in separate proceedings.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
July 28, 2009.

rka

…3