ORDER : The petitioner was the defendant in OS.No.443/2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, who has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 20.01.2020 passed therein, by which an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the written statement, was rejected. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The suit in OS.No.443/2015 was filed for ejectment of defendant from the suit schedule property and to recover mesne profits of Rs.50,000 per month. Plaintiffs claimed that they are the co-owner of the suit property which earlier belonged to their brother Sri.K.Krishnamurthy who died intestate the plaintiffs claimed that Sri.K.Krishnamurthy was unwell and mentally unsound and hence his brother Sri.K.Krishnadas was appointed as a guardian by the Court in Misc.No.69/1988. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant who was an occupant of the suit property, conspired with Sri.K.Krishnadas and contested the ownership of the plaintiff. They alleged that the defendant constructed buildings in the common areas and blocked the common areas at the rear side of the building and was running a boarding and lodging house causing nuisance to the adjacent owners. Later, the defendant unauthorizedly installed seven overhead tanks. The plaintiffs therefore, terminated the tenancy of the defendant and initiated proceedings for recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that Sri. K.Krishnamurthy was indeed the owner of the suit property and a guardian Sri.K.Krishnadas was appointed in Misc.No.69/1988. He however denied that the guardian had neglected to maintain the suit property and contended that he was an irrevocable licencee who could not be evicted from the suit property. He further claimed that he was placed in possession of the suit property on the basis of an agreement executed by Sri.K.Krishnadas in his favour and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession of the suit property. The trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial. He further claimed that he was placed in possession of the suit property on the basis of an agreement executed by Sri.K.Krishnadas in his favour and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession of the suit property. The trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial. When the suit was set down for the evidence of the defendants, an application under Order VI Rule 17 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendant to amend the written statement to contend that Sri.K.Krishnadas when he was in sound state of mind had executed a Will dated 23.04.2015, by which he bequeathed the suit property and other properties in his favour. The trial Court after considering the objections filed by the plaintiffs to the application, rejected the same with cost of Rs.500/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has filed this writ petition. The learned counsel contended that the copy of the Will was already marked as an exhibit in the chief examination of the defendant and therefore permitting the defendant to amend the written statement would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. He also submitted that allowing the amendment would not take away any admission and therefore the same deserved to be allowed. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. It is not in dispute that the property in question belonged to Sri.K.Krishnamurthy. It is also not in dispute that Sri.K.Krishnadas was the brother of said Sri.K.Krishnamurthy and was appointed as guardian in Misc.No.69/1988. The defendant contested the suit for ejectment claiming that Sri.K.Krishnadas had executed an agreement of sale and had placed the defendant in possession of the property. However, now he has come up with a new contention that Sri.K.Krishnadas had executed a Will in favour of the defendant. The fact that the defendant had marked the Will in his evidence, leaves no doubt that the defendant was in possession of the alleged Will and therefore it was incumbent upon for him to plead about the said Will in the written statement when it was originally filed. The fact that the defendant had marked the Will in his evidence, leaves no doubt that the defendant was in possession of the alleged Will and therefore it was incumbent upon for him to plead about the said Will in the written statement when it was originally filed. The defendant has waited till the case meandered towards the evidence of DW1 and this indicates that the defendant was not diligent but was a fence sitter waiting to protract the proceedings in the suit by filing one or the other application. 7. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the application filed. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- payable by defendant to District Legal Services Committee, Mangaluru, within a period of one week.