As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and restoration of possession of property, which the Trial Court partly decreed. The defendants appealed to the High ... Court, which initially remanded the matter, but the Supreme Court later modified this, directing the Trial Court to only record additional evidence and submit a report to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal. The defendants subsequently sought to amend their written statement and raise additional grounds in the appeal, arguing the plaintiff lacked possession, the suit was not maintainable, and it had abated due to non-substitution of legal heirs of a deceased defendant. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting these prayers and confirming the Trial Court's judgment on maintainability and abatement, particularly when the suit was based on possessory title. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no perversity or illegality. It affirmed that the rejection of the amendment was appropriate given the significant delay and the attempt to introduce new pleas at the appellate stage. The Court also agreed that the suit was maintainable based on prior possession, rejecting the *jus tertii* plea, and that the suit had not abated as the deceased defendant's interest was adequately represented by his sons. The appeal was dismissed.