Is this correct

[abhilasha03]

• At a later time, Walter would be able to finish the book

[Raymott]

• At a later time, Walter would be able to finish the book

It's grammatical. It's also meaningful if it refers to something that has already happened in the past. This style is often used in historical accounts.
Indira Gandhi first became Prime Minister of India in 1966. She would still hold this post in 1984, when she was assassinated.
In this sense, 'would' is not a conditional marker.
Has Walter finished the book?

[abhilasha03]

Thanks for your reply.

Can we rephrase it as "Walter might finish the book later in the day."

[Raymott]

Thanks for your reply.

Can we rephrase it as "Walter might finish the book later in the day."

Not according to my previous post.
In any case, no, it doesn't mean that.
What is it that you want to say - with context?

[phinamdl]

• At a later time, Walter would be able to finish the book

In my opinion, "At a later time, Walter can finish the book" or "At a later time, Walter is going to finish the book"

Can U give me my answer ??? Thanks in advance