Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the time spent in court-referred mediation must be excluded while computing the statutory limitation for filing a written statement in civil suits. The decision came in appeals filed by defendants in a partition suit, challenging the Registrar’s order rejecting their written statements for exceeding the prescribed 120-day limit under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The court observed that compelling parties to file written statements during mediation would undermine the mediation process and contradict the objective of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

The matter arose from a suit for partition filed concerning properties located in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, and Chandigarh. The plaintiff sought a division of these properties by metes and bounds for separate possession. Summons were issued, and on July 26, 2022, the suit was formally registered.

During the initial hearings, the defendants contended that the copies of the plaint and supporting documents provided to them were illegible. On September 28, 2022, the court directed the plaintiff to furnish legible copies, which were provided to the defendants on October 3, 2022.

Subsequently, during the hearing on November 2, 2022, the plaintiff proposed referring the dispute to mediation, a suggestion that was accepted by all parties. The court, in its order dated November 2, 2022, noted the defendants’ request to defer filing the written statement until the mediation proceedings concluded. The mediation, however, failed on January 24, 2023.

Following the failed mediation, the defendants filed their written statements—Defendant No.1 on April 9, 2023, and Defendant No.4 on April 12, 2023. The plaintiff objected to their submissions, arguing that the time for filing the written statements had commenced on October 3, 2022, and expired within the 120-day limitation period prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

On May 31, 2024, the Joint Registrar dismissed the defendants' applications seeking condonation of delay, ordering that their written statements be taken off record. The Registrar also held that, under the applicable procedural rules, failure to file a written statement within 120 days results in automatic admission of the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants subsequently filed appeals before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar’s order.

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the time spent in mediation should be excluded from the 120-day limitation period for filing a written statement.

The court stated that the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, mandate a maximum of 120 days for filing a written statement, beyond which no condonation of delay is permitted. However, it noted that mediation proceedings serve a crucial purpose in civil disputes, particularly in partition cases where amicable settlements can preserve family relationships and prevent prolonged litigation.

Referring to Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13903, the court stated that "if parties are attempting to mediate and settle the dispute and are forced to file written statements, it will hamper the mediation process and be detrimental to the spirit of mediation, which ensures a just solution acceptable to all the parties." The court noted that mediation fosters constructive dialogue and should not be disrupted by procedural obligations that might deter parties from negotiating in good faith.

The court further referred to Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2629, where a coordinate bench had previously excluded the period spent in mediation while computing the deadline for filing a written statement. The court held that the same principle should apply in the present case.

In its judgment, the court stated that "forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete pleadings during mediation will prevent them from freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started." The court found merit in the argument that the limitation clock should pause while mediation is ongoing.

Based on these observations, the Delhi High Court set aside the Joint Registrar’s order and ruled as follows:

1. Exclusion of Mediation Period: The time period from November 2, 2022 (when the case was referred to mediation), to January 24, 2023 (when mediation failed), must be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for filing the written statement.

2. Acceptance of Written Statements: Since the defendants' written statements were filed within 120 days after excluding the mediation period, they were deemed valid and ordered to be taken on record.

3. Imposition of Costs: The court directed Defendants No.1 and 4 to pay costs of ₹5,000 each to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund as a condition for accepting their written statements.

4. Future Compliance: The court stated that the exclusion of mediation time applies only when mediation is court-referred and does not apply to private settlement discussions.

Case Title: Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh and Others
Case Number: CS(OS) 427/2022
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad

[Read/Download order]