ORDER IA 3272 of 2009 1. This application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC has been made by defendant for amendment of written statement. The defendant has sought amendment of the written statement on the ground that he suddenly got awaken up to the stand taken by plaintiff in the replication and realized that no defence has been put by him to this stand. 2. A perusal of plaint shows that the stand of the plaintiff from the very beginning has been that the plaintiff has purchased the first floor of the property plus 65 sq. ft. of covered area as servant quarters on the terrace above the second floor along with common toilet and 10 sq. yards of the area for placing water tanks with use of the stairs for coming up to terrace. In an application moved by defendant under Order 14 Rule 5, CPC defendant himself has reproduced the stand taken by plaintiff. 3. Now in this application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC defendant pleads that he was not aware of the stand of plaintiff and has suddenly woken up. This stand of defendant cannot be believed. Moreover, by way of amendment defendant wants to add around ten more preliminary objections in previously taken 20 preliminary objections making the total preliminary objections more than his actual paragraphs in reply. 4. It is submitted by Counsel for defendant that he want to take more objections in view of amendment in bye-laws and as per the bye-laws, a servant quarter could not be of 65 sq. ft. of habitable area was 180 sq. ft. 5. The room may be named as servant quarter or as a store or with any other name. What has been sold to plaintiff is 65 sq. ft. of covered area. It may be that plaintiff has used the same as servant quarter, in that event the remedy does not lie in this Court because this Court is not adjudicating the issue whether the room on the terrace can be used as servant quarter or not. What has been sold to plaintiff is 65 sq. ft. of covered area. It may be that plaintiff has used the same as servant quarter, in that event the remedy does not lie in this Court because this Court is not adjudicating the issue whether the room on the terrace can be used as servant quarter or not. This Court is only to adjudicate the issue as to what was sold to the plaintiff by defendant No.2 and what was sold to defendant No. 1 and if after executing the sale deed in favour of plaintiff by defendant No.2 (prior in time) could the same right which has been transferred to plaintiff be resold to defendant and issues have been framed on this aspect in the pleadings. 6. I consider that the present application made by defendant on the plea of his awakening in respect of stand and pleadings of plaintiff, during evidence is not tenable and the application is liable to be dismissed with costs. The same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant, however, would be at liberty to initiate proceedings as per law to enforce building bye-laws. CS (OS) 2063/2007 7. Parties have already made efforts for compromise through mediation but failed. However, during arguments it transpired that there is some hope of compromise between the parties. Defendant No.1 shall put his proposal of compromise in writing and submit it to the Court and give a copy of the same to the plaintiff within a week from today and plaintiff shall given his response with counter proposal if any for compromise. It is hoped that parties shall make sincere efforts of compromising the matter since the parties are living in the same building one on the first floor and other on the second floor and it would be in the interest of parties that they live peacefully together until they choose to leave the premises. List on 19th December, 2009 for chamber hearing at 12 noon. Ordered accordingly.