The Delhi High Court has referred an important legal question to a larger Bench over whether the time spent in court-referred mediation should be excluded while calculating the deadline for filing a written statement or replication in civil suits. The Court noted that conflicting judicial opinions have emerged on the issue and said an authoritative ruling is necessary to ensure uniformity in the application of the law.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a chamber appeal filed by Vedpal Singh against an order of the Joint Registrar dated May 5, 2026. The appeal challenged the decision to exclude the period during which the parties participated in mediation while computing the limitation period for filing the defendants' written statement.
The civil suit had been instituted in 2023, and summons were served on the defendants at different dates in June and September 2023. On September 12, 2023, the parties agreed to explore an amicable settlement, and the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
The mediation proceedings continued until January 12, 2024, but no settlement could be reached. The defendants filed their combined written statement on January 18, 2024. Later, the Joint Registrar condoned the delay after excluding the mediation period from the limitation calculation. The plaintiff challenged that approach before the High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the dispute raises a significant legal issue because different Benches of the Delhi High Court have expressed conflicting views on whether mediation time can be excluded while calculating the statutory period for filing pleadings.
The Court examined earlier judgments that held the 120-day outer limit for filing a written statement under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules is mandatory and cannot be extended merely because the parties were engaged in settlement discussions. It also considered later decisions that recognised mediation as an integral part of dispute resolution and permitted exclusion of the mediation period in appropriate cases.
Referring to the importance of mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court observed that compelling parties to simultaneously pursue adversarial pleadings while sincerely attempting settlement may defeat the purpose of mediation.
The Bench observed,
“Compelling a party to file a written statement, thereby shifting the focus towards adversarial litigation, would mean swimming against the tide favouring mediation.”
The Court also noted that India is increasingly encouraging alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and highlighted the objective of promoting a "Vivad Mukt Bharat" through effective mediation. However, it stressed that inconsistent judicial decisions on the issue require a clear and authoritative resolution.
Decision
Without deciding the legal question itself, Justice Subramonium Prasad directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench of two or three Judges.
The larger Bench has been asked to determine 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?”
Case Details
Case Title: Vedpal Singh v. Satishpal & Ors.
Case Number: O.A. 122/2026 in CS(OS) 322/2023
Judge: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
