As per the case facts, a commercial dispute over sub-contract liabilities led to the Commercial Court rejecting the appellant's written statement, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appellant ... argued that the statement should have been accepted, citing extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic that the lower courts overlooked. The question arose whether the Commercial Court and High Court were correct in not allowing the defendant's written statement to be taken on record, especially considering the time extensions provided due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the statutory time limits for filing written statements. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the orders of both the Commercial Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court determined that the defendant-appellant's notarized written statement should have been accepted. It directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit according to law, handle all pending applications without delay, and properly consider the impact of the pandemic-related orders that extended filing deadlines.