Delhi HC Refers Mediation Time Question to Larger Bench

The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad on July 1, 2026, has referred a significant procedural question to a larger bench: whether the time spent in court-referred mediation can be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement or replication.

Background of the Dispute The matter arose from Vedpal Singh v. Satishpal & Ors. , where the plaintiff challenged an order of the learned Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar had condoned the delay in the filing of a written statement by the defendants, citing that the parties were actively engaged in mediation during the period that would have otherwise caused the filing to be time-barred.

The timeline of the suit, instituted in 2023, shows that the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre on September 12, 2023. This mediation process continued until January 12, 2024, when the report indicated that settlement efforts had failed. The defendants subsequently filed their written statement on January 18, 2024.

The Conflict of Judicial Opinion The central tension lies in the interpretation of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 . The rules mandate strict timelines for filing pleadings, leading to a visible split in judicial approaches:

• The Strict Approach: Precedents like Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur (2021) and the Division Bench ruling in Amit Tara v. Deepak Tara (2024) have held that the outer limit for filing a written statement is mandatory and cannot be extended, even when parties are engaged in mediation.
• The Equitable Approach: Conversely, cases such as Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh (2025) and Sangeeta Rai Sandhu v. Charanjit Sandhu (2025) argue that the objectives of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) require the exclusion of mediation time to encourage parties to reach an amicable resolution without the pressure of imminent procedural default.

Key Observations Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted the conflict between rigid procedural adherence and the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Delivering the judgment, the Court remarked:

"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."

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that mediation is a "new dimension of access to justice," noting that forcing a party to litigate while simultaneously attempting to mediate risks undermining the "win-win" philosophy inherent to the process.

The Way Forward Because of the divergence in judicial opinions between various benches of the High Court, Justice Prasad concluded that an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to provide clarity to the Joint Registrars. The matter has been placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench of two or three Judges to answer whether the time spent in mediation is excludable under the statutory limitation framework.

This referral serves as a pivotal moment for civil procedure in Delhi, potentially balancing the strict efficiency of the Original Side Rules with the broader constitutional and legislative mandate to promote mediation as the preferred channel for conflict resolution.