Exclusion of Mediation Period from Statutory Limitation for Filing Written Statements Referred to Larger Bench

The Defendants challenged an order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Joint Registrar, which closed their right to file a written statement for exceeding the time limit stipulated under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Summons were served on 08.12.2023, but the complete paper-book was provided only on 16.02.2024, by which time the parties had already been referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.

Mediation ultimately failed on 27.05.2024.

The Defendants argued that the time spent in mediation should be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing the written statement.

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

2. Whether the mandatory nature of the 120-day outer limit for filing a written statement precludes any exclusion of time spent in mediation.

Chapter VII, Rules 2(i) and 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which prescribe a 30-day period for filing a written statement, extendable by 90 days (total 120 days), after which the right is extinguished.

The court noted the strict interpretation in Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani, holding these timelines mandatory.

The court contrasted the restrictive view in Amit Tara v. Deepak Tara and Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur—which state mediation does not halt the clock—against the liberal view in Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh and Sangeeta Rai Sandhu v. Charanjit Sandhu, which hold that time spent in mediation should be excluded.

Section 89 of the CPC and the principles in Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla regarding non-adversarial settlement environments.

The Court observed a sharp "divergence of judicial opinions" within the Delhi High Court regarding the calculation of limitation during mediation.

One line of authority (e.g., Harjyot Singh) mandates that even if settlement talks are a "sufficient cause" for condonation, they cannot extend the 120-day hard limit.

A more recent line of authority (e.g., Sangeeta Rai Sandhu) suggests that because mediation is a non-adversarial process encouraged by Section 89 of the CPC, the time spent therein should be entirely excluded (not just condoned) to prevent parties from being forced into adversarial filings while trying to settle.

Justice Prasad noted that compelling adversarial filings during mediation "swims against the tide" of the national policy for "Vivad Mukt Bharat".

Under the powers of the Single Judge, the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench (of two or three Judges) to definitively 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.