JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), rejecting petitioners’ application dated 22.02.2018, seeking leave to file written statement. The factual matrix of the case unfolds thus:— 2. The plaintiff - Mohan Lal had filed a suit against the defendants (petitioners herein) in the year 2003, in which the defendants were given last opportunity to file written statement on 06.02.2006 and the matter was posted on 20.02.2006. As the petitioners failed to file written statement on the said date, their right to file written statement stood closed. The petitioners’ right to lead evidence too was closed in the year 2016. 3. It is pertinent that subsequently the plaintiffs filed an application dated 18.1.2017, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. indicating that due to inadvertence the neighborhood of the contentious plot had been wrongly mentioned, which application came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 29.02.2017. 4. There after as the plaintiff - Mohan Lal had passed away on 26.03.2017, the matter could not be proceeded for want of substitution of his legal representatives, who were brought on record on 02.10.2017. 5. At this juncture, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 22.02.2018 and prayed that they be permitted to file the written statement. The plaintiffs contention has been that since the suit has been amended on 27.02.2017, they have got a right to file written statement. 6. Trial Court dismissed the application interalia observing that the application seeking leave to file written statement has been filed after 11 months of the order permitting amendment in the suit; and further because the petitioners’ right to file written statement had been closed way back on 20.06.2006. As this fact was very much in petitioners’ knowledge, the inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the written statement in a suit pending since 2003 was inexcusable; also observed the trial Court. 7. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania calling the order dated 12.10.2018 in question, argued that the petitioners’ right was revived on passing of the order dated 27.02.2017, vide which the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the suit. 7. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania calling the order dated 12.10.2018 in question, argued that the petitioners’ right was revived on passing of the order dated 27.02.2017, vide which the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the suit. He argued that after the amendment of the plaint, the petitioners - defendants were entitled to file their written statement and hence the Trial Court has committed an apparent error of law in rejecting the subject application filed by the petitioners. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is firmly of the view that the petitioners cannot claim resurrection of their right to file the written statement, simply because the suit stood amended vide order dated 27.02.2017. 9. By way of the order dated 27.02.2017, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, but the said order had simply permitted change in the neighborhood of the contentious plot, which was undeniably an inadvertent error. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ right to file written statement had been closed way back on 20.06.2006 and so also the right to lead evidence. 11. Admittedly the suit proceedings are at fag end and if the petitioners’ request to permit filing of the written statement is acceded to, it would bring the proceedings back to square one. 12. This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of Mr. Purohit that once the amendment in the suit is allowed and the amended plaint is filed, the defendants’ right to file written statement resurrects. 13. As far as the right to file written statement after the amendment in suit is concerned; a defendant definitely has a right to file amended written statement, pursuant to the amended plaint. But it is to be noticed that after the amendment in the plaint, the defendant gets right to file “amended written statement” and not “written statement”. In cases like the present one, when no written statement has been filed, there arises no question of filing written statement in the guise of right to file amended written statement. The plea taken by the petitioners is preposterous and liable to be rejected. 14. In cases like the present one, when no written statement has been filed, there arises no question of filing written statement in the guise of right to file amended written statement. The plea taken by the petitioners is preposterous and liable to be rejected. 14. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners had neither challenged the order granting amendment in the plaint nor are/were they seriously concerned about the amendment in the plaint, correcting the particulars of the property. 15. The plaintiff had passed away on 26.03.2017 and merely because the matter remained pending for substitution of his legal representatives for the period between 26.03.2017 to 02.10.2017, the petitioners cannot justify the delay of 11 months in filing the application for taking written statement on record, after the amendment had been allowed by the Court. As a matter of fact the delay was not of 11 months, but it was of 11 years, as the petitioners’ right to file written statement had been closed on 20.02.2006. 16. Needless to observe that the order dated 20.06.2006 has attained finality and the same cannot be set at naught in the manner attempted to. Such attempt is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. 17. I do not find any infirmity or error, legal or jurisdictional, in the order impugned. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed in limine. No order as to cost.