Mediation Time Period Can Be Excluded While Computing Limitation For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Remarking that asking parties to file written statements during the mediation process would be against the spirit of mediation, Justice Subramonium Prasad said “In the opinion of this Court, if parties are attempting to mediate and settle the dispute and are forced to file written statements then this will hamper the entire mediation process and would be detrimental to the spirit of Mediation which ensures a just solution acceptable to all the parties to the dispute thereby achieving a win-win situation. In the opinion of this Court, forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other which they have not been able to since the dispute started.”

The Court was considering defendants nos. 1 and 4 the appeals against the Joint Registrar's order dismissing their applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

The case concerned suit filed for partition of certain properties. During the course of the hearing before the High Court, the matter was referred to mediation on 02.11.2022. The defendants prayed that since the matter was referred to mediation, they be allowed to file their written statement only after the mediation proceedings were completed. This request was accepted by the High Court.

However, the mediation process failed on 24.01.2023. The defendant nos. 1 and 4 then filed their written statements along with application for condonation of delay of 74 days and 77 days respectively before the Joint Registrar.

The Joint Registrar however dismissed their applications for condonation of delay on the ground that the written statements were filed beyond the period prescribed in CPC as well as the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules. The defendant nos. 1 and 4 thus challenged this order before the High Court.

Opposing the plea, the plaintiff contended that as per Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the Court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing written statement beyond a period of 120 days.

For context, Rule 2 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 mandates the written statement to be filed within 30 days of the service of the plaint and Rule 4 provides that the Court may extend the filing of written statement for a period not exceeding 90 days after the 30-day period has expired.

While the Court acknowledged that it cannot condone a delay in filing written statement beyond the prescribed period of 120 days, it noted that in the present case, the issue was whether the period of 120 days would stop running when the parties are referred to mediation.

Referring to Section 89 of CPC, which deals with settlement of disputes outside the court, the Court remarked, “In view of Section 89 of the CPC, “every Court while dealing with family disputes does make a sincere endeavour to ensure that parties reach an amicable settlement rather spending good time and money in litigation.”

It also relied on Vikram Bakshi and Others v. Sonia Khosla (2014), where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for early resolution of disputes and highlighted the importance of mediation in settling disputes between the parties.

The High Court thus was of the view that directing parties to file written statement during the mediation would be detrimental to the process.

Here, the Court thus excluded the time period during mediation for calculating the limitation. It also noted that the delay in filing the written statement beyond 30 days but within 120 days was also sufficiently explained by the defendant nos. 1 & 2.

The Court thus condoned the delay while imposing cost of Rs. 5000, to be paid to 'Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund'.

“Since this Court has excluded the time spent in Mediation and since the written statement has been filed within the period of maximum 120 days excluding the period spent in Mediation, this Court is inclined to accept the written statement filed by Defendants No.1 and 4, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with “Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund”.”

Case title: Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157

Counsel For Plaintiff: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, Ms. Anubha Goyal, Mr. Tanishq Sirohi, and Ms. Ishani Pillai, Advocates.

Counsel For Defendants: Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Mr. Himanshu Sachdeva, and Mr. Anudatt Dubey, Advocates for Defendant No. 1., Ms. Chand Chopra and Ms. Neha Bhupathiraju, Advocates for Defendant No. 2., Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Mr. Anshuman Choudhary and Mr. Akhil Sachar for Defendant No. 4.