The time spent in mediation limitation for written statement issue will now be decided by a Larger Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Court has referred the question of whether the period spent in mediation should be excluded while calculating the limitation for filing a written statement or replication under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that conflicting judicial decisions have created uncertainty. He held that an authoritative ruling is necessary to ensure consistency in decisions of Joint Registrars dealing with delay-condonation applications.
The reference arose in O.A. 179/2024 in CS(OS) 459/2023, Narender Gupta & Anr. v. CA Vaibhav Jalan & Ors., decided on July 1, 2026.
Background of the Dispute
The defendants filed a chamber appeal under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. They challenged the Joint Registrar’s order dated September 3, 2024, which refused to exclude the mediation period while calculating the limitation for filing their written statement.
Narender Gupta and another had instituted the suit against CA Vaibhav Jalan and others.
Mr. Simar Pal Singh and Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav represented the plaintiffs. Ms. Manasi Bhushan, Ms. Sanjana Patel, and Mr. Mohammed Navas K. appeared for the defendants.
The Court issued summons, and the defendants received them on December 8, 2023. The defendants argued that they did not initially receive the complete paper-book.
On February 1, 2024, both sides agreed to explore an amicable settlement. The Court referred the dispute to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and directed the parties to appear on February 5, 2024.
The defendants received the complete paper-book only on February 16, 2024, after mediation had already begun. Mediation failed, as recorded in the report dated May 27, 2024. Later, the Joint Registrar closed the defendants’ right to file a written statement after holding that the statutory period under Chapter VII had expired.
The defendants contended that the mediation period should not count while calculating the limitation period.
Issue Before the Court
Justice Subramonium Prasad framed the following question:
Whether the period spent by parties in mediation can be excluded while computing the time prescribed under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, for filing a written statement.
The Court noted that Rule 2(i) of Chapter VII requires defendants to file a written statement within 30 days from service of summons. Rule 4 allows an extension of up to 90 additional days if sufficient cause exists. After the total period of 120 days expires, the Rules bar the Court from taking the written statement on record.
The Court also referred to Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani (2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353), where a Division Bench held that these timelines are mandatory.
Conflicting Judicial Views
Justice Prasad observed that different Benches of the Delhi High Court have adopted conflicting approaches.
In Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2629), a Single Judge held that mediation may justify condonation of delay within the permissible period. However, the Court ruled that judges cannot exclude the mediation period or extend the statutory limit beyond 120 days.
A Division Bench later endorsed this view in Amit Tara & Others v. Deepak Tara & Others (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7900). It reiterated that mediation cannot extend the mandatory outer limit of 120 days.
However, the Court noted that Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh & Others (2025 SCC OnLine Del 691) adopted a different approach. Relying on Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that forcing parties to file pleadings during genuine settlement efforts would discourage mediation. It therefore excluded the mediation period while computing limitation.
The judgment in Bharat Singh relied on earlier decisions, including Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Del 13903) and Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Newage Generators (P) Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 6556), which had also recognised exclusion of time spent in mediation.
Justice Prasad further noted that a Division Bench approved this reasoning in Sangeeta Rai Sandhu & Others v. Charanjit Sandhu & Others (2025 SCC OnLine Del 5541). The Bench held that while the overall 120-day ceiling remains mandatory, courts should exclude the genuine mediation period while calculating limitation.
Court’s Observations
Justice Prasad said the conflicting precedents require reconciliation to ensure consistency in judicial administration.
Referring to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court noted that it encourages courts to promote settlement through alternative dispute resolution, including mediation.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla (2014) 14 SCC 80. The Supreme Court highlighted that mediation transforms adversarial disputes into collaborative problem-solving and often leads to mutually beneficial outcomes.
Highlighting the growing importance of mediation, Justice Prasad observed:
“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.”
Even so, the Court stated that only a Larger Bench could resolve the conflicting legal positions.
Reference to the Larger Bench
Justice Prasad directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate Bench.
The Court ordered that O.A. 179/2024 in CS(OS) 459/2023 be listed along with O.A. 122/2026 in CS(OS) 322/2023 before the Chief Justice.
The Larger Bench will decide whether the time spent in mediation limitation for written statement should be excluded while calculating the limitation period prescribed under Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
