The Petitioners, comprising multiple defendants, contended that the trial court's decision to allow an amendment to the Plaint was erroneous, particularly because the trial had already begun, and significant steps had been taken in the proceedings. The case involved a Plaintiff, an elderly and illiterate woman, who sought to introduce evidence regarding sale deeds executed by one of the defendants, asserting that these transactions were not binding on her.

The trial commenced with issues framed on February 15, 2019. The Plaintiff had already testified and undergone cross-examination. The amendment sought to challenge the validity of sale deeds dated August 24, 1999, and July 6, 2008, which the Plaintiff had only recently obtained certified copies of, prompting her to argue that she had not been diligent in pursuing these documents earlier due to her circumstances.

The trial court accepted the amendment, highlighting the need for a comprehensive adjudication of the case's real issues. The court justified its decision by emphasizing the Plaintiff's vulnerability and the necessity of resolving all aspects of the dispute.

Defendants opposed the amendment on the grounds of limitation and procedural compliance, arguing that the Plaintiff was aware of the sale deeds and their implications well before the amendment was sought. They cited previous judgments where courts disallowed amendments on similar grounds, underscoring the principle that once the trial is underway, amendments should be scrutinized more rigorously to prevent vexatious litigation.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s counsel referenced landmark judgments that advocate for amendments when they serve the interest of justice, particularly when they seek to clarify the issues at hand and reduce the need for further litigation.

Upon review, the higher court concluded that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment post-commencement of the trial. The Plaintiff's previous awareness of the sale deeds and her failure to act diligently in collecting the necessary documentation indicated a lack of due diligence. The court emphasized that allowing amendments at such a late stage could disrupt the trial's integrity and compromise the defendants' positions.

Ultimately, the court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed the Plaintiff's amendment application, reiterating that procedural rules are in place to protect the rights of all parties involved and ensure the efficient administration of justice.

This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance courts must strike between facilitating access to justice and maintaining procedural integrity. The ruling reinforces the notion that parties must act diligently in pursuing their claims, particularly once a trial has commenced. As litigation evolves, the principles governing amendments will continue to be pivotal in shaping fair outcomes within the judicial system.