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

1. The main legal ruling is that amending the written statement after the defence has been struck off is impermissible, as it amounts to changing the basis of the case [judgement_subject].

2. The court found that the lower court's decision to allow such an amendment was illegal and exercised without proper jurisdiction (!) (!) .

3. The amendment in question involved adding a different rate of rent, which was not challenged or raised earlier in the proceedings, especially after the defence had been struck off for non-compliance with deposit orders (!) (!) .

4. The law permits a defendant to raise issues related to title and rent rate even after the defence against ejectment is struck off, but it does not support amendments that fundamentally alter the case's basis at a late stage (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that allowing such amendments when the defence has been struck off, and the defendant has failed to deposit the ordered rent, constitutes illegal exercise of jurisdiction and disrupts the proper course of litigation (!) (!) .

6. The revision application was allowed, and the order permitting the amendment was set aside, with a direction to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter promptly [judgement_subject].

7. The court also clarified that the scope of permissible defences after a defence is struck off is limited to issues like title and rent, and not to amendments that change the fundamental case or dispute earlier orders (!) (!) .

8. The legal principle established reinforces that amendments which alter the core basis of the case after the defence has been struck off are illegal and cannot be permitted [judgement_subject].

These points collectively summarize the court's view that amendments to written statements after the defence is struck off are impermissible unless they pertain to issues still open for argument, and that such amendments, when made to change the case's foundation, are illegal.