The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench a significant procedural question that could shape the way civil litigation is handled on its Original Side: should the period spent in court-referred mediation be left out while calculating the deadline for filing written statements and replications?
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the reference after observing that different benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue, leading to uncertainty in the application of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The matter has now been placed before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya for the constitution of a bench of two or three judges to settle the following question:
Whether the period spent in mediation should be excluded while computing the limitation prescribed for filing written statements and replications under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018?
While referring the issue, Justice Prasad underscored the growing emphasis on mediation in India’s dispute resolution framework. He observed that, at a time when the country is striving towards a “Vivad Mukt Bharat,” forcing parties to file written statements during ongoing mediation would shift the process back into an adversarial mode, contrary to the objective of encouraging negotiated settlements.
The reference arose from a chamber appeal challenging an order of the Joint Registrar, who had condoned the delay in filing a written statement by excluding the period during which the parties were engaged in mediation.
According to the case record, the dispute was referred to mediation in September 2023. Settlement efforts continued for nearly four months before ultimately failing in January 2024, following which the defendants submitted their written statement.
Examining the issue in detail, Justice Prasad noted that previous decisions of the Delhi High Court have not spoken in one voice on whether mediation time can be omitted while calculating the mandatory filing timeline under the Original Side Rules. The absence of a consistent legal position, the Court observed, has resulted in divergent approaches even before Joint Registrars dealing with similar matters.
To ensure uniformity and provide authoritative guidance on the procedural question, the Court concluded that the issue warrants consideration by a larger bench.
