Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Gopal Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Arup Banerjee, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

• When an amendment to the written statement is sought, it should be permitted if it is aimed at amplifying or elaborating on the defense already taken, without introducing new defenses or withdrawing admissions (!) .

• The amendment should be allowed if it does not change the core defense, does not prejudice the other party, and the trial is still ongoing, with evidence yet to be completed (!) .

• The courts should favor allowing amendments in the interest of justice, especially when the trial is in progress and the proposed amendments do not adversely affect the opposing party's case (!) .

• The decision to permit amendments is within the discretion of the court, which must consider whether the proposed changes are factual clarifications rather than new defenses or admissions (!) .

• In this case, the appellate court found that the proposed amendments met these criteria, as they clarified and elaborated on the existing defense without introducing new issues or prejudicing the plaintiffs (!) .

• The appellate court set aside the previous orders rejecting the amendment, allowing the defendants to amend their written statement, which aligns with principles of justice and procedural fairness (!) .

• The case was remitted for the trial to be completed expeditiously, ideally within six months, emphasizing the importance of timely justice (!) .

These points highlight the importance of flexibility in pleadings, especially when amendments serve to clarify or strengthen existing defenses without altering the fundamental issues of the case.