Vedpal Singh vs Satishpal & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 01 JULY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
O.A. 122/2026
IN
+ CS(OS) 322/2023, I.A. 9842-9844/2023, I.A. 1732/2024, I.A.
13195/2026
VEDPAL SINGH .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr. Bhaavan
Mahajan and Mr. Tanmay S Surana,
Advocates
versus
SATISHPAL & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Appearance not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
O.A. 122/2026
1. The present Chamber Appeal under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“ the Rules ”) has been filed by the
Plaintiff challenging the Order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Joint
Registrar.
2. The learned Joint Registrar vide Order dated 05.05.2026 which is
under challenge in the present Appeal, has taken into account the time spent
in mediation and hence, the present Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff in
the instant Suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 1 of 22
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, some basis facts which are necessary for
adjudication of the present Appeal are as follows:
i. Summons were issued in the instant Suit vide Order dated 22.05.2023
to the Defendants.
ii. Material on record indicates that the Defendant No.1 was served on
14.06.2023, Defendant Nos.2, 5 & 6 were served on 09.06.2023,
Defendant No.3 was served on 25.06.2023 and there being no service
report of Defendant No.4, his service was presumed as date of first
appearance on his behalf i.e. 12.09.2023.
iii. It is stated that Order dated 12.09.2023 reflects that Parties were
willing to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement before the
Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The learned Joint Registrar,
therefore, directed the Parties to appear before the Delhi High Court
Mediation Centre on 27.09.2023.
iv. Material on records indicates that the settlement talks failed and the
Mediation Report dated 12.01.2024 indicates the fact. Therefore, the
matter remained in Mediation from 12.09.2023 to 12.01.2024 i.e.
about 4 months. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendants filed a
combined written statement on 18.01.2024. On 05.05.2026, the
learned Joint Registrar exempted the time spent in Mediation from
counting the limitation period for filing the written statement and
subsequently, condoned the delay in filing the written statement on
behalf of the Defendants.
v. The question that, therefore, arises, for consideration is whether the
maximum prescribed period for computing the limitation for filing the
written statement by the Defendants, namely: (i) Defendant No.1 from
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 2 of 22
14.06.2023; (ii) Defendant Nos.2, 5 & 6 from 09.06.2023; (iii)
Defendant No.3 from 25.06.2023; and (iv) Defendant No.4 from
12.09.2023, is to be reckoned strictly from the said dates, or whether
the period during which the parties were engaged in mediation i.e.,
from 12.09.2023 to 12.01.2024, ought to be excluded while
computing the limitation period, particularly when the written
statement on behalf of all the Defendants came to be filed on
18.01.2024.
4. The short question which arises for consideration in the present
Appeal is as to whether the period spent in mediation by the Parties, can be
excluded from the time that has been specified under Chapter VII of the
Rules for filing the written statement.
5. It is pertinent to mention that there is divergence of judicial opinions
within this Court on the question as to whether time taken in mediation
should be excluded from the period mentioned in Chapter VII of the Delhi
High Court Rules for filing written statement/replication.
6. Rule 2(i) of Chapter VII of the Rules prescribes that the written
statement must be filed within a period of 30 days of receiving the summons
along with an affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
7. Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Rules provides that a written statement
may be filed within a further period of 90 days after the initial period of 30
days, subject to filing an application seeking condonation of delay and
furnishing reasons explaining why the written statement could not be filed
within the prescribed period of 30 days. The said Rule further stipulates that
upon expiry of the outer limit i.e., beyond 90 days in addition to the initial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 3 of 22
30 day period, the written statement cannot be taken on record. In this
regard, reference is made to a Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani, (2020) SCC OnLine Del
1353, wherein it is held that the time period as prescribed under Chapter VII
of the Rules is mandatory and thus there is no power to condone the delay.
8. The question as to whether the time spent in mediation can be
excluded or not from the time prescribed under Chapter VII of the Rules,
came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur , (2021) SCC OnLine Del 2629, wherein
the learned Single Judge has taken a view that the time spent in mediation
could neither be reckoned nor exempted. Relevant paragraphs of the said
Judgment are being reproduced hereinbelow to read as under:
“ 38. Mr. Baruah's contention that the defendant
could not have been expected to file the written
statement while the parties were endeavouring to
resolve the disputes amicably, is merited. As noticed
above, the same is a sufficient ground for condoning
the delay in filing the written statement. In Red Bull
AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Supra); Dr.
Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Shri Amrit Pal Singh :
(2003) 105 DLT 184; Telefonaktiebolaget L.M.
Ericsson v. Lava International Limited : (2016) 226
DLT 342 this court had condoned the delays on
account of the time spent by the parties in
endeavouring to resolve the disputes in Mediation.
However, the time spent by the parties in Mediation
cannot be excluded from the time stipulated for filing
of the written statement or replication. As noticed
above, the defendant is required to file the written
statement within a period of thirty days from the date
of receipt of summons. This Court can condone a delay
of ninety days beyond that period provided that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 4 of 22
defendant satisfies this Court that it was prevented by
„sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable
reason‟ in filing the written statement within the period
of 30 days. The fact that the parties were attempting to
resolve the disputes would be a sufficient cause to
condone the delay. However, the Court cannot
condone the delay beyond the period of ninety days
days as stipulated under Rule 4 of DHC(OS) Rules .
There is no provision to the aforesaid effect. Once it
has been held that the provisions of Rule 4 of
DHC(OS) Rules are mandatory and, the Court does
not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond a
period of ninety days as has been held by the Division
Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani (supra), the
question of condoning the delay beyond that period for
any reason whatsoever is not permissible.
39. This Court is unable to accept the contention that
the delay in filing the written statement on the part of
the defendant can be condoned.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. While referring to the abovementioned judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench, the Division Bench of this Court in Amit Tara and Others v. Deepak
Tara and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 7900 also took a view that the
said period cannot be condoned. Relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment
are being reproduced hereinbelow to read as under:
“9. At this stage, Respondent No. 1-Deepak Tara,
appearing virtually, refutes the allegation that there
were any settlement talks between the parties. He
states that there has been no talk in the last 3 years
between the parties and thus the grounds taken in the
Chamber Appeal were false.
*
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 5 of 22
16. Further, the discretion exercised by the Court to
condone the delay in filing of the written statement is
limited to a period of 90 days after the initial 30 days'
time period prescribed under the Rules. The said
discretion can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that
the Defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for
exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the
written statement within the period of 30 days.
Moreover, the time period mandated under the Rule 4
of the Rules cannot be extended beyond 120 days on
any ground, including on the ground that
mediation/settlement talks were on going or pending
between the parties during the relevant time for filing
of written statement. Ld. Single Judge of this Court in
Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur [2021 SCC OnLine
Del 2629], has considered the mandatory nature of
Rule 4 vis-à-vis delay in filing to written statement on
the ground of pendency of mediation or settlement talk
between parties. The observations of ld. Single Judge
are reproduced hereinunder:
“38. Mr. Baruah's contention that the
defendant could not have been expected to file
the written statement while the parties were
endeavouring to resolve the disputes amicably,
is merited. As noticed above, the same is a
sufficient ground for condoning the delay in
filing the written statement. In Red Bull AG v.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Supra); Dr.
Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Shri. Amrit Pal
Singh : (2003) 105 DLT 184;
Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava
International Limited : (2016) 226 DLT 342
this court had condoned the delays on account
of the time spent by the parties in endeavouring
to resolve the disputes in Mediation.
However, the time spent by the parties in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 6 of 22
Mediation cannot be excluded from the time
stipulated for filing of the written statement or
replication. As noticed above, the defendant is
required to file the written statement within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
summons. This Court can condone a delay of
ninety days beyond that period provided that
the defendant satisfies this Court that it was
prevented by „sufficient cause for exceptional
and unavoidable reason‟ in filing the written
statement within the period of 30 days. The fact
that the parties were attempting to resolve the
disputes would be a sufficient cause to condone
the delay.
However, the Court cannot condone the delay
beyond the period of ninety days as stipulated
under Rule 4 of DHC(OS) Rules. There is no
provision to the aforesaid effect. Once it has
been held that the provisions of Rule 4 of
DHC(OS) Rules are mandatory and, the Court
does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay
beyond a period of ninety days as has been held
by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram
Sarup Lugani (supra), the question of
condoning the delay beyond that period for any
reason whatsoever is not permissible.
39. This Court is unable to accept the
contention that the delay in filing the written
statement on the part of the defendant can be
condoned.
xxx xxx xxx
46. Rule 4 of the DHC Rules is a rule of
procedure and insofar as expedient, a liberal
view in condoning the delay ought to be taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 7 of 22
by the Court, however, that does not mean that
the said Rule can be completely ignored or
should be interpreted to render it meaningless.
In the present case, even if it is accepted that
this Court has the jurisdiction to condone the
delay in filing the written statement beyond a
period of 90 days (which this court does not),
there are grounds for doing so in this case.”
17. In view of the above, it is clear that the period for
filing the written statement cannot be extended
beyond the mandatory period of 120 days even if
parties are engaged in settlement/mediation.
Accordingly, even in the present case, merely because
alleged settlement talks were going on between the
parties, the same is not a sufficient ground to extend
the period for filing of the written statement beyond
120 days. ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. On the other hand, this Court in Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh and
Others, (2025) SCC OnLine Del 691 , without considering the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Amit Tara ( supra ), has taken a
completely contrary view. Relevant paragraphs of Bharat Singh ( supra ) are
being reproduced and reads as under:
“17. The present suit is one for partition. Section 89 of
the CPC provides for settlement of disputes outside
Court. Section 89 of the CPC is reproduced, which
reads as under:—
“89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.—
(1) Where it appears to the Court that there
exist elements of a settlement which may be
acceptable to the parties, the Court shall
formulate the terms of settlement and give them
to the parties for their observations and after
receiving the observations of the parties, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 8 of 22
Court may reformulate the terms of a possible
settlement and refer the same for:—
(a) arbitration;
(b) conciliation;
(c) judicial settlement including settlement
through Lok Adalat : or
(d) mediation.
(2) Were a dispute has been referred—
(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the
proceedings for arbitration or conciliation
were referred for settlement under the
provisions of that Act;
(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the
same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (1) of section 20 of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987)
and all other provisions of that Act shall apply
in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok
Adalat;
(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer
the same to a suitable institution or person and
such institution or person shall be deemed to be
a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall
apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok
Adalat under the provisions of that Act;
(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 9 of 22
compromise between the parties and shall
follow such procedure as may be prescribed.”
18. 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. The Apex Court in Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia
Khosla, (2014) 15 SCC 80, has emphasized the spirit of
Mediation and has observed as under:—
“16. According to us it would have been more
appropriate for the parties to at least agree to
resort to mediation as provided under Section
89 CPC and make an endeavour to find
amicable solution of the dispute, agreeable to
both the parties. One of the aims of mediation
is to find an early resolution of the dispute. The
sooner the dispute is resolved the better for all
the parties concerned, in particular, and the
society, in general. For parties, dispute not
only strains the relationship but also destroys
it. And, so far as society is concerned it affects
its peace. So what is required is resolution of
dispute at the earliest possible opportunity and
via such a mechanism where the relationship
between individual goes on in a healthy
manner. Warren Burger, once said:
“The obligation of the legal profession is … to
serve as healers of human conflict … we should
provide mechanisms that can produce an
acceptable result in shortest possible time, with
the least possible expense and with a minimum
of stress on the participants. That is what
justice is all about.”
Mediation is one such mechanism which has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 10 of 22
been statutorily brought into place in our
justice system. It is one of the methods of
alternative dispute resolution and resolves the
dispute in a way that is private, fast and
economical. It is a process in which a neutral
intervenor assists two or more negotiating
parties to identify matters of concern, develop a
better understanding of their situation, and
based upon that improved understanding,
develop mutually acceptable proposals to
resolve those concerns. It embraces the
philosophy of democratic decision-making
[Alfin, et al., Mediation Theory & Practice
(2nd Edn., 2006) Lexis Nexis].
17. Thus, mediation being a form of alternative
dispute resolution is a shift from adversarial
litigation. When the parties desire an ongoing
relationship, mediation can build and improve
their relationships. To preserve, develop and
improve communication, build bridges of
understanding, find out options for settlement
for mutual gains, search unobvious from
obvious, dive underneath a problem and dig out
underlying interests of the disputing parties,
preserve and maintain relationships and
collaborative problem solving are some of the
fundamental advantages of mediation. Even in
those cases where relationships have turned
bitter, mediation has been able to produce
positive outcomes, restoring peace and amity
between the parties.
18. There is always a difference between
winning a case and seeking a solution. Via
mediation, the parties will become partners in
the solution rather than partners in problems.
The beauty of settlement through mediation is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 11 of 22
that it may bring about a solution which may
not only be to the satisfaction of the parties
and, therefore, create a win-win situation, the
outcome which cannot be achieved by means of
judicial adjudication. Thus, life as well as
relationship goes on with mediation for all the
parties concerned and thus resulting into peace
and harmony in the society. While providing
satisfaction to the litigants, it also solves the
problem of delay in our system and further
contributes towards economic, commercial and
financial growth and development of the
country.
19. This Bench is of firm opinion that mediation
is a new dimension of access to justice. As it is
one of the best forms, if not the best, of conflict
resolution. The concept of Justice in mediation
is advanced in the oeuvres of Professors
Stulberg, Love, Hyman, and Menkel-Meadow
(Self-Determination Theorists). Their definition
of justice is drawn primarily from the exercise
of party self-determination. They are hopeful
about the magic that can occur when people
open up honestly and empathetically about
their needs and fears in uninhibited private
discussion. And, as thinkers, these jurists are
optimistic that the magnanimity of the human
spirit can conquer structural imbalances and
resource constraints.
19.1.Professor Stulberg, in his masterful
comment on the drafting of the Uniform Model
Mediation Act, Fairness and Mediation, begins
with the understated predicate that “the
meaning of fairness is not exhausted by the
concept of legal justice”. In truth, the more
pointed argument advanced in the article is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 12 of 22
that legal norms often diverge quite
dramatically from our notion of fairness and
the notion of fairness of many disputants. Legal
rules, in Stulberg's vision, are ill-equipped to
do justice because of their rigidity and
inflexibility.
19.2.Professors Lela Love and Jonathan M.
Hyman argue that mediation is successful
because it provides a model for future
collaboration. The authors state that the
process of mediation entails the lesson that
when people are put together in the same room
and made to understand each other's goals,
they will together reach a fair resolution. They
cite Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address
which proposed that in a democracy, “„a
patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the
people‟ to do justice among themselves … is a
pillar of our social order”.
19.3. Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow
presents a related point of view in making the
case that settlement has a political and ethical
economy of its own and writes:
“Justice, it is often claimed, emerges only when
lawyers and their clients argue over its
meaning, and, in turn, some authoritative
figure or body pronounces on its meaning, such
as in the canonical cases of the late twentieth
century … For many years now, I have
suggested that there are other components to
the achievement of justice. Most notably, I refer
to the process by which we seek justice (party
participation and empowerment, consensus
rather than compromise or command) and the
particular types of outcomes that might help to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 13 of 22
achieve it (not binary win-lose solutions, but
creative, pie-expanding or even shared
solutions).”
19.4. Justice in mediation also encompasses
external developments, beliefs about human
nature and legal regulation. Various jurists are
drawn to mediation in the belief that litigation
and adversarial warring are not the only, or
the best ways to approach conflict. And how
optimistically and sceptically mediators assess
the capabilities of individual parties and
institutional actors to construct fair outcomes
from the raw material of human conduct.
19.5. Mediation ensures a just solution
acceptable to all the parties to dispute thereby
achieving “win-win” situation. It is only
mediation that puts the parties in control of
both their disputes and its resolution. It is
mediation through which the parties can
communicate in a real sense with each other,
which they have not been able to do since the
dispute started. It is mediation which makes the
process voluntary and does not bind the parties
against their wish. It is mediation that saves
precious time, energy as well as cost which can
result in lesser burden on exchequer when poor
litigants are to be provided legal aid. It is
mediation which focuses on long-term interest
and helps the parties in creating numerous
options for settlement. It is mediation that
restores broken relationship and focuses on
improving the future not of dissecting the past.
It is based on an alternative set of values in
which formalism is replaced by informality of
procedure, fair trial procedures by direct
participation of parties, consistent norm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 14 of 22
enforcement by norm creation, judicial
independence by the involvement of trusted
peers, and so on. This presents an alternative
conceptualisation of justice.”
19. 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.
Confronted with a similar problem, while reckoning
the time period for filing the written statement and as
to whether the time spent in Mediation should be
excluded or not, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava
International Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13903,
has observed as under:—
“21. It is evident that from 31st August, 2015
till 29th October, 2015 undisputedly parties
were trying to settle their dispute. Time of 59
days was spent on settlement talks which at
the end of the day could not be materialized.
Interim application is at the stage of
conclusion of the arguments on behalf of the
defendant. The advantage, if any, has gone in
favour of the defendant as there is no ex-parte
interim injunction in the present case. After
having heard learned counsel for the parties, I
am of the view that since the parties were
trying to resolve their dispute amicably and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 15 of 22
that process has taken 59 days, the said period
is to be excluded from the period provided in
the Civil Procedure Code and Clause 4D(i) of
Commercial Courts Ordinance.
22. Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle
of law that if parties are negotiating settlement
during the pendency of a matter, then the Court
will condone the delay in filing of written
statement due to such settlement talks. This
Court, in its decision in Dr. Sukhdev Singh
Gambhir v. Amrit Pal Singh, ILR (2003) 1 Del
577, inter alia held that:
“5. Having heard, counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the respective pleas
urged before me, I am of the view that this is a
case where the delay in filing of the written
statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is
a suit for partition concerning family members
where every endeavor should be made for
amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the
mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be
made to settle the matter. Secondly, the
defendant had already filed the written
statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it
could not be the situation that the defendant
was delaying the case, but on account of the
attempts at settlement written statement was not
filed”
20. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in
Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson (supra) has been
quoted with approval by another Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Newage
Generators (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6556,
wherein after quoting the Telefonaktiebolaget L.M.
Ericsson (supra), this Court has observed as under:—
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 16 of 22
“12. Hence, this court would encourage
mediation as a mechanism to settle the
disputes. While the mediation process is on to
insist that the parties should speedily file
pleadings in its very nature would be an
adversarial act and not be conducive for the
mediation process. Hence pendency of the
mediation proceedings itself would not be
sufficient ground to condone the delay in re-
filing the written statement.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The view taken by this Court in Bharat Singh ( supra ) has been
affirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in Sangeeta Rai Sandhu
and Others v. Charanjit Sandhu and Others, (2025) SCC OnLine Del 5541 ,
it was observed as under:
“16. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellants
placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this
Court in Bharat Singh (Supra), to substantiate his
contention that a post-mediation extension in form of a
liberty to file the written statement, shall be granted.
This judgment is, in the opinion of this Court,
applicable to the present case to the extent that it
answers a disputed question of law. While placing
reliance on the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of
this Court in Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v.
Lava International Limited4 and Graves Cotton Ltd. v.
Newage Generators (P) Ltd.5, the learned Single
Judge rightly held that, particularly in the backdrop of
dispute arising out of family matter, the time period
utilised in mediation proceedings ought not to be
calculated within the statutory limitation for filing of
pleadings. The learned Single Judge while relying
upon the Supreme Court's judgment of Vikram Bakshi
v. Sonia Khosla6, also emphasized that when the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 17 of 22
parties earnestly engage in mediation, the Court shall
always make a sincere endeavour for an amicable
settlement of such dispute.
17. Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, in so far
as the contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellants with respect to the intention of the learned
Single Judge in its order dated 29.03.2023 qua the
direction of completion of pleadings is concerned, this
Court observes that the Appellants have appeared
before the Joint Registrar even during the pendency of
the mediation proceedings. The same is evident from
the order dated 04.05.2023, wherein the counsel for
the Appellants sought time from the learned Joint
Registrar to file their written statement on the pretext
of collecting certain relevant documents. The relevant
portion of the said order of learned Joint Registrar is
reproduced under:
“It is submitted by counsel for plaintiff that no
written statement has been filed by any
defendant till date and stipulated period for
filing the same has expired and their right to
file written statement may be closed.
It is submitted by counsel for defendant nos. 1
to 3 that she could not file written statement till
date as she is collecting the relevant documents
regarding the property in question and seeks
some more time to file written statement along
with relevant application for condonation of
delay.
Settlement talks before mediation is still going
on. However, no settlement has been finalized
till date.
List for same as well as for appearance of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 18 of 22
defendant nos. 4 and 5 for 02.08.2023.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
The above-said Order was passed by the
learned Joint Registrar on 04.05.2023, and as
such the argument advanced by the counsel for
the Appellants regarding the mediation
proceedings leading to delay in filing the
written statement squarely contradicts the
contention of the counsel for the Appellants.
More so for the reason, that the Appellants'
proactive request seeking time to file the
written statement without any objection
constitutes to a representation. As such, in light
of the equitable doctrine of estoppel, they
cannot now claim delay on the pretext of
pendency of the mediation proceedings, as
doing so would be inequitable and contrary to
established legal principles.
18. However, with respect to the intention of the
learned Single Judge referring the parties to
mediation while concurrently listing the matter before
the learned Joint Registrar, in the opinion of this
Court, vide its Order dated 29.03.2023 is rendered
inessential, particularly in view of the observations of
this Court with respect to Bharat Singh (Supra) in the
preceeding paragraph.
19. Now, coming to the factual matrix of the present
case, it is undisputed that the summons was effected
upon the Appellants on 31.01.2023. Whereas,
pursuant to the learned Single Judge's Order dated
29.03.2023, the parties were actively trying to settle
the dispute by way of mediation from 17.04.2023 to
20.11.2023, which ultimately failed, and a Mediation
Report dated 20.11.2023 to that effect was filed.
Subsequently, the Appellants' right to file the written
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 19 of 22
statement was closed on 21.12.2023. Although the
Appellants eventually filed their written statement on
29.04.2024, the fact that, their right to file the written
statement was closed on 21.12.2023 by the learned
Joint Registrar, cannot be lost sight of.
20. In addition to the aforestated, this Court deems it
appropriate to bifurcate the pre-mediation and post-
mediation period to provide an enhanced clarity.
Excluding the time period consumed by mediation, the
pre-mediation period, commencing from the date of
service of summons on 17.02.2023 and concluding with
the referral to mediation on 29.03.2023, amounts to 40
days. Similarly, the post-mediation period, starting
from 21.11.2023, immediately following the Mediation
Report dated 20.11.2023, upto 21.12.2023, the date of
closure of right of the Appellants, totals to 30 days. As
such both the pre-mediation and post-mediation period
when taken together amounts to 70 days. Accordingly,
the total delay excluding the time of mediation till the
date the right of the Appellants to file the written
statement was closed was within the prescribed time
limit.
21. Therefore, in light of the aforestated and the
subsequent interpretation as provided by the Benches
of this Court, it is reiterated that the prescribed limit of
120 days for filing a written statement is inviolable and
cannot be exceeded under any guise. Nevertheless, if
the parties have chosen the recourse of mediation to
reach to an amicable settlement, the time so spent shall
stand excluded while calculating the time limit
prescribed for filing the written statement.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, there is an apparent divergence of judicial opinions between the
Coordinate Benches and Division Benches of this Court, which requires
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 20 of 22
reconciliation in order to put a quietus on the issue as to whether during the
process of mediation, when the parties are trying to amicably settle the
disputes, should a Defendant be compelled to file the written statement or a
Plaintiff be compelled to file the replication, or keeping in mind the spirit of
mediation, should this period spent in mediation be excluded from the
period prescribed under Chapter VII of the Rules.
13. Section 89 of the CPC mandates the parties to explore the possibilities
of settlement or resolve their disputes through mediation. The Apex Court in
Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla, (2014) 14 SCC 80 has emphasized the
importance of mediation and observed that there exists a marked distinction
between merely succeeding in litigation and arriving at a resolution through
mediation. It was observed that in the process of mediation, parties
transform from being adversaries in conflict to collaborators in finding a
solution. The Apex Court further noted that settlement through mediation is
capable of yielding an outcome that is mutually satisfactory to the parties,
thereby creating a win-win situation, which may not always be attainable
through adjudicatory proceedings.
14. 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.
15. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that an authoritative
pronouncement is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions by the learned
Joint Registrars while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay
in filing the written statement/replication, when the parties are in mediation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 21 of 22
is necessary.
16. In view of the above discussion, let the matter be placed before
Hon‟ble the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate 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?”
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 01, 2026
Prateek/JR
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
18:53:24
CS(OS) 322/2023 Page 22 of 22