JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration relating to an immovable property instituted in the year 1988 complain of a further application for amendment of the plaint being declined by the order impugned dated February 28, 2014. 2. The plaintiffs say that since it is evident from the order impugned that the trial had not commenced and, in any event, since the proviso to amended Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to this suit, the trial Court should have permitted the amendment to be incorporated. The petitioners suggest that the proposed amendment would neither have changed the nature or character of the suit nor retracted any admission contained in the plaint; that all that the plaintiffs intended to do was to challenge some entries in the records of rights which were relevant in the context of the title claimed in the suit; and, that such matters were necessary to be considered in deciding the real controversies between the parties. 3. The contesting defendants have produced the certified copy of the entire order-sheet from which it appears that there were directions issued more than a decade back for the expeditious disposal of the suit and that previous applications for amending the plaint have been allowed on similar grounds as in the present case. It appears that the plaintiffs have been less than diligent in prosecuting the suit. Order no.121 passed on December 07, 2010, recorded that the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs' first witness and for payment of costs on behalf of the plaintiffs. The following order of January 21, 2011 recorded that the further evidence of the plaintiffs' first witness was to be continued on such day. 4. In the relevant application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, which culminated in the order impugned being passed, there was no indication as to why the application was made nearly a quarter of a century after the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs are correct that the 2002 Amendment to the Code would not apply to this suit, but Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code always carried the substance of what is now recorded in the amended proviso thereto. It was always incumbent on a party to a civil suit to seek the necessary amendment of pleadings at the earliest. The plaintiffs are correct that the 2002 Amendment to the Code would not apply to this suit, but Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code always carried the substance of what is now recorded in the amended proviso thereto. It was always incumbent on a party to a civil suit to seek the necessary amendment of pleadings at the earliest. By merely saying that the amendment is necessary to adjudicate the real controversies between the parties, a party seeking the amendment cannot gloss over the delay in carrying the application to Court. 5. Since the conduct of the plaintiffs in prosecuting the suit has been found wanting and since the trial Court exercised a discretion available to it which cannot be said to be perverse, the order impugned dated February 26, 2014 does not call for any interference in this extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. C.O.2083 of 2014 is dismissed and the trial Court is requested to ensure that the suit now renumbered as Title Suit No.210 of 2004 is disposed of as expeditiously as possible and without granting any adjournment to the plaintiffs. 7. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.