The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the time spent in mediation should be excluded while computing the limitation period prescribed for filing a written statement or replication under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, noting conflicting judicial precedents on the issue.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a chamber appeal challenging an order of the Joint Registrar closing the defendants’ right to file a written statement on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time. The defendants argued that the delay occurred because the parties had been referred to mediation soon after service of summons and the mediation proceedings continued until they ultimately failed.
The Court noted that while the defendants were served with summons in December 2023, they received the complete paper book only after the mediation process had commenced. Following the failure of mediation, the Joint Registrar closed their right to file the written statement, prompting the present appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the period consumed in mediation should be excluded while calculating the statutory period for filing pleadings.
Examining the existing jurisprudence, the Court observed that there is a clear divergence of judicial opinion within the High Court. Earlier decisions, including Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 2629 and the Division Bench judgment in Amit Tara v. Deepak Tara, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 7900, held that although mediation may constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay, the time spent in mediation cannot be excluded from the mandatory 120-day period prescribed for filing a written statement.
However, the Court noted that subsequent decisions, adopted a contrary view by holding that the period genuinely spent in mediation ought to be excluded while computing the limitation period, particularly in view of the legislative intent behind Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the judiciary’s consistent encouragement of amicable dispute resolution.
Justice Prasad emphasised that Section 89 CPC mandates courts to encourage settlement through mediation and referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla,(2014) 15 SCC 80, recognising mediation as a process capable of producing mutually satisfactory “win-win” outcomes. The Court observed that compelling parties to file pleadings while mediation is underway would shift the focus back to adversarial litigation and amount to “swimming against the tide” favouring mediation, particularly at a time when the country is striving towards a “Vivad Mukt Bharat.”
Finding that an authoritative pronouncement was necessary to resolve the conflicting views and ensure consistency in decisions of Joint Registrars, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench of two or three judges to answer the following question:
“
“Whether the time spent in mediation ought to be excluded while computing the limitation period prescribed for filing the written statement/replication as prescribed under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018?”
