In a suit for specific performance the petitioner was one of the defendant, Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no summon of the suit was ever served upon the petitioner. He was summoned to ap pear as a witness in the suit, pursuant to which he came and executed a Vakalat- nama in favour of his Counsel for the purposes of answering the summons, re quiring him to give evidence and not for a purposes of contesting the suit because there was no occasion for him to contest the suit. He further alleges that the suit was amended by order dated 14-1-1986 after the death of the defendants father. He further allegeg that he was alleged to have executed a deed in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of power of attorney executed by his father, who had subsequently revoked the said power of attorney. In fact he had never executed any deed. By virtue of amendment on the death of the defendants father it was alleged that by reason of the alleged execution of sale-deed the share of the defendant was trans ferred. Therefore the suit for specific per formance in respect of the share of the petitioner-defendant on the basis of such amendment, was decree