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