Promoting Amicable Resolutions: Exclusion of Mediation Time in Civil Procedure
Introduction:This case study delves into a pivotal judgment from the High Court of Delhi that addresses the interplay between procedural timelines for filing written statements and the exclusion of time spent in mediation proceedings. The appeal challenges the refusal to allow a delayed written statement in a partition suit, highlighting the tension between strict adherence to the 120-day limit under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation. The Division Bench's decision underscores the court's commitment to expeditious justice while accommodating genuine efforts at amicable settlement, particularly in family disputes. By allowing the appeal, the judgment clarifies the computation of statutory periods, reinforcing procedural fairness without undermining the rules' mandatory intent.
Factual Background: The underlying dispute stems from a partition suit filed by Respondent No. 1, Charanjit Sandhu, seeking division of family properties contested by the appellants, Sangeeta Rai Sandhu and others, who are defendants in the suit. The suit involves familial relations, with allegations of contested ownership and division of assets. The appellants argued that ongoing mediation and settlement talks justified their delay in filing the written statement, emphasizing that they were actively engaged in resolving the matter amicably even after formal mediation failed. The respondents countered that the appellants had ample opportunity to file their defense and that the delay was deliberate, pointing to the appellants' appearances before the Joint Registrar during mediation. The court noted that the suit's substantive merits were not delved into deeply, focusing instead on procedural aspects, but recognized the family nature of the dispute as relevant to encouraging mediation.
Procedural Background: The partition suit, CS (OS) 65/2023, was registered on 31.01.2023 after the plaint was filed by Respondent No. 1. Summons were issued and served on the appellants on 17.02.2023. On 29.03.2023, the Single Judge referred the parties to mediation at the Samadhan, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, while simultaneously listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 04.05.2023 for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of documents, and marking of exhibits. Mediation proceedings spanned from 17.04.2023 to 20.11.2023, involving 13 sessions, but ended in failure with a report filed on 20.11.2023. On 21.12.2023, the Joint Registrar closed the appellants' right to file the written statement, observing that the 120-day statutory period from service had expired. The appellants filed their written statement on 29.04.2024. Challenging the Joint Registrar's order, they filed a Chamber Appeal (O.A. No. 93/2024) under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 04.02.2025 for deliberate non-filing despite directions. A subsequent Review Petition (Rev. Pet. No. 220/2025) under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed on 19.05.2025, upholding the earlier order. The appellants then appealed to the Division Bench under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Core Dispute:The primary issue is whether the time spent in court-referred mediation should be excluded from the 120-day period for filing a written statement under Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The appellants contended that excluding the mediation period (17.04.2023 to 20.11.2023) left them with sufficient time, and the Joint Registrar erroneously closed their right prematurely, especially amid ongoing settlement talks. They argued that forcing pleadings during mediation could hinder free communication. The respondents maintained that even excluding mediation, the delay was inexcusable, totaling 162 days post-mediation report, and emphasized the mandatory nature of the timeline. The dispute thus centers on balancing procedural rigidity with the encouragement of mediation in non-commercial suits, questioning if the Single Judge's concurrent directions for pleadings negated exclusion of mediation time.
Discussion on Judgments: The appellants relied on Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 691, where a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court held that parties in mediation, especially in family disputes, cannot be compelled to file written statements or complete pleadings, as it might impede open communication; this was cited to support excluding the mediation period from the 120-day limit. The respondents invoked Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi & Chirag Sharma v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5945, a Division Bench decision upholding the constitutionality of the 120-day limit in Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, observing that written statements filed beyond this period cannot be taken on record even in non-commercial suits; this was used to argue the inviolable nature of the timeline. The court itself referenced Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. v. Col Ashish Khanna SM Retd & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7022, a Coordinate Bench ruling that Rule 4 is mandatory to ensure expeditious adjudication; this was discussed to affirm the outer limit's purpose. In analyzing Bharat Singh, the court drew from Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13903, and Graves Cotton Ltd. v. Newage Generators (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6556, both Coordinate Bench decisions emphasizing that time in mediation should not count towards pleading deadlines in family matters; these were cited to reinforce exclusion in the present case. Additionally, the court relied on Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. Sonia Khosla, (2014) 15 SCC 80, a Supreme Court judgment stressing sincere judicial efforts for amicable settlements via mediation; this was invoked to highlight the policy favoring mediation without penalizing participants procedurally.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Division Bench, led by Justice Anil Kshetarpal, analyzed the procedural timeline by bifurcating pre-mediation (17.02.2023 to 29.03.2023, 40 days) and post-mediation (21.11.2023 to 21.12.2023, 30 days) periods, totaling 70 days excluding mediation, well within the 120-day limit when the right was closed. The judges held that Rule 4's mandatory phrase "but not thereafter" prohibits extensions beyond 120 days generally, but time in earnest mediation must be excluded to encourage settlements, particularly in family suits, aligning with judicial policy. They distinguished the Single Judge's concurrent listing before the Joint Registrar as not intending to include mediation time in computations, rendering that aspect inessential. The bench applied estoppel against the appellants for seeking time extensions during mediation without objection, but ultimately favored exclusion based on Bharat Singh's rationale that pleadings could hinder mediation. The court rejected the respondents' delay calculation post-mediation report, emphasizing the appellants' bonafide engagement. Overall, the analysis balanced procedural expedition with equity, reiterating that while the 120-day limit is inviolable, mediation as a court-directed process warrants exclusion to avoid discouraging alternative resolutions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders of the Single Judge and Joint Registrar. The court accepted the appellants' written statement filed on 29.04.2024, directing that proceedings before the Single Judge continue uninfluenced by this order, with the appellants permitted to participate fully. The pending application was disposed of accordingly.
Law Settled in This Case:This judgment establishes that the 120-day period for filing written statements under Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, is mandatory and cannot be exceeded, but time spent in court-referred mediation is excluded from computation, especially in family disputes, to promote amicable settlements without procedural prejudice. It clarifies that concurrent directions for pleadings do not negate this exclusion, and parties' engagement in mediation must be protected to align with broader judicial encouragement of alternative dispute resolution.
Case Title: Sangeeta Rai Sandhu & Ors. vs. Charanjit Sandhu & Ors.
Date of Order: 20.08.2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) 80/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7049-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
