ORDER The petitioners/L.Rs' of 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 7783 of 2000 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-5) are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 25-8-2009 passed on LA. No. 19 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at Annexure-F and allow the petitioners to amend the written statement as prayed for. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the petition is as under: The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a suit against the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and 2nd defendant, since dead represented by L.Rs namely the present petitioners, seeking declaration that the suit schedule property is the public road and for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove the unauthorised construction on the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The original defendant entered appearance and filed written statement as per Annexure-B. At the stage of defendants' evidence, the petitioners filed an application I.A. No. 19 under Order 6, Rule, 17 of the CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement and incorporate paras 15 to 20. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court passed the impugned order at Annexure-F on 25-8-2009 holding that there was no merit in the application. This is impugned in the writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that: (i) The Trial Court hurriedly passed the impugned order on I.A. No. 19. (ii) The Trial Court erred in not granting an opportunity to the petitioners to submit arguments on I.A. No. 19. (iii) The Trial Court erred in not noticing the fact that the proposed amendment of written statement for amplification of averments already on record. (iv) The Trial Court erred in holding that there are no typographical errors or over sight in the written statement. (v) The Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners being the legal representatives ought to have been allowed to file the additional written statement. (vi) The Trial Court erred in noticing the fact that on the earlier occasion, plaint was amended but the petitioner's Advocate was not feeling well, therefore, they could not file additional written statement and therefore, the Trial Court should have allowed the application I.A. No. 19 seeking permission' to amend the written statement. 4. (vi) The Trial Court erred in noticing the fact that on the earlier occasion, plaint was amended but the petitioner's Advocate was not feeling well, therefore, they could not file additional written statement and therefore, the Trial Court should have allowed the application I.A. No. 19 seeking permission' to amend the written statement. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. The suit is of the year 2000. If the respondents/plaintiffs had amended the plaint, the petitioners had right to file the additional written statement. Merely, their Advocate was not feeling well is not a good ground to contend that the petitioners are entitled to seek for amendment of the written statement. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The impugned order reveals that the petitioners were heard on I.A. No. 19 (vide para 3 of the order). Apart from even this Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at length as to is there any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The amendment sought to be incorporated in paras 15 to 20 to the written statement are not necessary to decide the controversy in the suit. The petitioners have not made out any good ground to seek permission to amend the written statement. In view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC unless it is established that the petitioners were diligent and they could not plead all those proposed amendments at the appropriate point of time, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for amendment of the written statement. There is no error in the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioners after addressing arguments at length submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an application seeking permission of the Trial Court to file additional written statement. Such a request cannot be accepted. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.