Delhi High Court 
News

Should mediation period be excluded in deadline for filing written statement? Delhi HC refers issue to larger bench

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that several benches have rendered contradictory findings on the issue.

Prashant Jha

The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the question on whether the time spent in mediation should be excluded while calculating the statutory deadline for filing written statements and replications in civil suits.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that conflicting judicial opinions by coordinate and division benches have created uncertainty over the issue.

Therefore, he directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya for the constitution of a 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?

“In the present times, particularly when India is endeavouring towards a “Vivad Mukt Bharat”, considerable emphasis is being placed on mediation. In the opinion of this Court, compelling a party to file a written statement, thereby shifting the focus towards adversarial litigation, would mean swimming against the tide favouring mediation,” Justice Prasad observed. 

Justice Subramonium Prasad

The Court passed the order after a litigant filed a chamber appeal against an order of the Joint Registrar who had condoned the delay by the defendants in filing the written statement.

The joint registrar had excluded nearly four months spent in mediation proceedings. 

It was stated that the parties had been referred to mediation in September 2023, but settlement efforts failed in January 2024.

Subsequently, the defendants filed their written statement.

In a 22-page judgement, Justice Prasad noted that the Delhi High Court precedents were divided on whether mediation time can be excluded from the mandatory timeline prescribed under chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. 

He added that an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions by the joint registrars. Therefore, he referred the issue to a larger bench. 

Advocates Tushar Mahajan, Bhaavan Mahajan and Tanmay S Surana appeared for Vedpal Singh.

[Read Judgment]

Vedpal Singh v Satishpal & Ors.pdf
Preview

Madhya Pradesh HC grants relief to journalists facing extortion case after sting op on female foeticide

Bank of Baroda pays $600 million to settle NMC Health fraud litigation in Abu Dhabi, London

TVK member moves Madras High Court alleging bribery in selection of government advocates

Citizens entitled to protest; slogans like BJP 'murdabad’ and ‘Amit Shah murdabad' not ground for externment: Bombay HC

Gauhati High Court rejects man's citizenship claim despite 15 documents

SCROLL FOR NEXT