The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the time spent by parties 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.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted the existence of conflicting judicial opinions on the issue and observed that an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to ensure uniformity in decisions rendered by Joint Registrars dealing with applications for condonation of delay.

The bench was hearing a chamber appeal arising from a commercial suit, where the defendants challenged an order of the Joint Registrar closing their right to file a written statement on the ground that it had been filed beyond the maximum period prescribed under Chapter VII of the Rules.

Defendants argued that the period during which the parties were pursuing mediation, which failed, ought to be excluded from the computation of limitation.

The High Court noted that there are divergent views on the issue inasmuch as a single bench in Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur (2021) and a Division Bench decision in Amit Tara v. Deepak Tara (2024) held that mediation period cannot be excluded while computing the mandatory outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement.

On the other hand, in Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh (2025), the High Court held that excluding the mediation period advances the objective of Section 89 CPC by encouraging parties to sincerely pursue settlement of disputes outside the Court. This view was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench in Sangeeta Rai Sandhu v. Charanjit Sandhu (2025).

Justice Prasad observed that Section 89 CPC mandates courts to encourage settlement through mediation and that compelling parties to file written statements while mediation is underway would undermine the very purpose of the process.

"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," the judge observed.

Noting that the conflicting precedents require reconciliation, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger appropriate.

Appearance: Mr. Simar Pal Singh and Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav, Advocates for Plaintiffs; Ms. Manasi Bhushan, Ms. Sanjana Patel and Mr. Mohammed Navas K, Advocates for Defendants

Case title: Narender Gupta & Anr. v. CA Vaibhav Jalan & Ors.

Case no.: CS(OS) 459/2023

Click here to read order