As per case facts, petitioners filed suits in 2014 to cancel sale deeds, having previously secured a decree in an inter-pleader suit confirming their possession and right to rents. After ... plaintiffs' evidence concluded in 2020, they sought to amend their plaint to include new reliefs like declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction for removing constructions, alleging recent dispossession and relying on previous court orders. The Trial Court dismissed these applications, citing delay and a change in the suit's nature. The petitioners appealed to the High Court challenging this dismissal. The question arose whether the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the amendment applications, considering they were filed belatedly after the trial commenced, introduced a new cause of action, and potentially time-barred claims under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Finally, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, ruling that the proposed amendments were filed after undue delay, after trial commencement, without due diligence, and would alter the fundamental nature of the suit, introduce time-barred claims, and complicate the proceedings, thus finding no reason to interfere.