As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunctions. Eleven years later, during the evidence stage, the plaintiff sought to amend the prayer clause to ... include a declaration that the defendants' constructions were illegal, along with consequential injunctions. This amendment application was rejected by the trial court, which found that the trial had commenced and the plaintiff lacked due diligence. The plaintiff then appealed this decision. The question arose whether an amendment to the plaint, especially after the commencement of the trial, could be allowed without demonstrating due diligence, and what constitutes "commencement of trial" under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Finally, the Court affirmed that the trial had indeed commenced, as evidence had been led and cross-examination was underway. The plaintiff failed to prove due diligence in not seeking the amendment earlier, and their argument of being unaware of the framed issues was deemed unbelievable and irrelevant. The Court further noted that the original prayers already covered the relief sought. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's decision.