Exclusion of Mediation Period from Limitation for Filing Pleadings Referred to Larger Bench for Authoritative Pronouncement.

The Plaintiff filed a Chamber Appeal challenging an Order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the Joint Registrar, which excluded the time spent in mediation (12.09.2023 to 12.01.2024) while calculating the limitation period for filing the written statement

Summons were served on various Defendants between June and September 2023

On 12.09.2023, the parties were referred to mediation, which failed on 12.01.2024; the Defendants subsequently filed a combined written statement on 18.01.2024

The Plaintiff contended that the limitation period under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules is mandatory and cannot be extended by excluding mediation time

1. Whether the period spent by parties in mediation can be excluded from the time specified under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 for filing a written statement or replication

2. Whether there exists a conflict in judicial precedents within the Delhi High Court regarding the mandatory nature of Rule 4, Chapter VII vis-à-vis Section 89 of the CPC

The Court examined Chapter VII, Rules 2(i) and 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which prescribe a 30-day limit for filing written statements, extendable by a maximum of 90 days, beyond which no statement can be taken on record

It considered Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani, which held these timelines to be mandatory

It contrasted Section 89 of the CPC (settlement of disputes outside court) and the objectives of mediation as emphasized in Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla, which promotes a non-adversarial resolution process

The Court noted a significant "divergence of judicial opinions" within the Delhi High Court

One line of reasoning, represented by Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur and the Division Bench in Amit Tara v. Deepak Tara, maintains that Rule 4 is inviolable; while mediation may constitute "sufficient cause" for a 90-day extension, the total period cannot exceed 120 days regardless of mediation

Conversely, a second line of reasoning in Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh and the Division Bench in Sangeeta Rai Sandhu v. Charanjit Sandhu posits that forcing parties to file adversarial pleadings during mediation hampers the "spirit of mediation" and "Vivad Mukt Bharat"

These cases held that the time spent in mediation should be excluded entirely from the limitation calculation

The Court found that an authoritative pronouncement is required to reconcile these conflicting views

It directed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench of two or three Judges to answer whether the time spent in mediation ought to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing written statements/replications under the 2018 Rules