Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Nitin Jamdar, C.J., S.Manu, J.
Suo Motu JPP Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala – Petitioner
Versus
NIL – Respondent
JPP NO. 1 OF 2025
Decided On : 04-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Sri. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader
Incorporation of mediation settlement terms in judgments requires statutory backing and party consent, with decisions depending on the nature of the case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 89 - Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008 - Establishment of uniform practice for incorporating mediation settlement terms into judgments - The court recognizes the need for clarity in judgments for litigants abroad, emphasizing that while incorporation may aid in authenticity, it requires statutory backing and consent of parties. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 10)
(B) Judicial Practice - The court cannot mandate a uniform format for judgments without statutory provision; decisions on inclusion of settlement terms depend on case nature and party consent. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The suo motu petition was initiated to address practical difficulties faced by litigants abroad regarding the non-inclusion of mediation settlement terms in judgments. A representation from the ADR Centre prompted the court to consider evolving a uniform practice.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the inclusion of settlement terms in judicial orders is contingent upon statutory backing and the nature of the case, with a preference for incorporation when parties consent.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of incorporating mediation settlement terms into judgments and the implications of such inclusion for litigants, particularly those abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while incorporating settlement terms can prevent disputes over authenticity, it cannot be mandated without statutory backing, and the decision should consider the nature of the case and party consent.
Result: Suo motu proceedings stand closed.
ORDER :
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
This suo motu petition has been initiated by the Registry to establish a uniform practice and procedure for preparing judgments, decrees, and orders in cases settled by compromise, whether through mediation or otherwise.
2. A representation was received by the Director of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Centre, High Court, requesting that the terms of a mediation settlement be incorporated into the judgment as a self-contained document. This request aims to address practical difficulties faced by litigants working abroad due to the non-inclusion of mediation settlement terms in judgments. The representation was placed before the Board of Governors of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre (KSMCC), which passed a resolution on 22 August 2024, directing that the matter be referred to the Registrar General of the High Court. The resolution recommended that the Chief Justice consider evolving a uniform practice for incorporating the terms of compromise into judgments, decrees, and orders. Consequently, the resolution was forwarded to the Registrar General and has now been placed on the judicial side under the roster "Judicial Practice and Procedure (JPP)" for registering suo motu proceedings.
3. Court-annexed mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is conducted under the control and management of the KSMCC. The conduct of mediation and preparation of mediation settlement agreements are governed by the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008 ("Rules of 2008"). Section 89 of the CPC provides that if the court finds that a settlement acceptable to the parties is possible, it shall formulate the terms of settlement and refer the matter for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement (including settlement through Lok Adalat), or mediation. If referred to mediation, the court shall facilitate a compromise between the parties and follow the prescribed procedure.
4. The Rules of 2008, framed by the Government of Kerala, define key terms in Rule 2. Rule 6 provides for the appointment of arbitrators, conciliators, judicial settlement authorities, and mediators. Part II of the Rules governs mediation procedures, with Rule 13 detailing the mediation process. Rule 24 addresses settlement agreements, requiring that an agreement reached between the parties on all or some issues be reduced to writing, verified, and signed by the parties or their power of attorney holders. These signatures must be attested by respective counsel or any authority specified in Rule 27 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice.
5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2008 states that the signed and attested agreement shall be submitted to the mediator, who shall forward it to the court with a covering letter. Sub-rule (3) provides that if no agreement is reached within the stipulated time, or if the mediator determines that no settlement is possible, the mediator must report this to the court in writing. Under Rule 25(a), within seven days of receiving a settlement agreement, the court must issue notice to the parties for recording the settlement. Rule 25(b) allows the court to pass a decree in accordance with the recorded settlement. However, neither Section 89 of the CPC nor the Rules of 2008 mandate that consent terms be included within the judicial order.
6. The Registry has observed that the prevailing practice in the High Court and District Judiciary is to pass judgments, decrees, and orders recording the compromise reached through mediation with a statement that the written agreement signed by the parties forms part of the judgment, decree, or order. However, the terms of the agreement are not incorporated within the body of the judgment and orders.
7. The representation highlights the challenges faced by litigants abroad in explaining and proving that the settlement deed referred to in the judicial order is the same document. While incorporating settlement terms in judgment
