Can Mediation Period Be Excluded While Computing Limitation For Written Statements? Delhi HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench

The Delhi High Court has recently referred to a larger bench the question of whether the time spent in mediation should be excluded while calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement or replication under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that conflicting judicial opinions within the high court have created uncertainty on the issue. The court held that an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions by Joint Registrars while deciding applications for condonation of delay in filing written statements and replications.

"In view of the above discussion, let the matter be placed before Hon‟ble the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench of two or three Judges to answer 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?”, the court ordered.

The reference arose from a chamber appeal filed by Vedpal Singh against a Joint Registrar's order of May 5, 2026. The Joint Registrar had excluded the period spent in mediation while computing the limitation period and condoned the delay in filing a combined written statement.

Summons in the suit were issued on May 22, 2023. On September 12, 2023, the parties agreed to explore an amicable settlement and were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The mediation continued until January 12, 2024, but did not result in a settlement. The defendants filed a combined written statement on January 18, 2024.

The court observed that Rule 4 permits a written statement to be filed within a further 90 days after the initial 30-day period. It is subject to an application seeking condonation of delay and explaining why the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed 30 days.

The court observed, "The said Rule further stipulates that upon expiry of the outer limit i.e., beyond 90 days in addition to the initial 30 day period, the written statement cannot be taken on record."

The court noted that one line of decisions has held that the 120-day outer limit for filing a written statement cannot be extended even if parties are engaged in mediation. Another line of decisions has held that the period spent in mediation should be excluded while computing the limitation period.

The court 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.."

The court nevertheless observed that "an authoritative pronouncement is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions by the learned Joint Registrars while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay in filing the written statement/replication, when the parties are in mediation."

The court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate bench of two or three judges. 

For Plaintiff: Advocates Tushar Mahajan, Bhaavan Mahajan and Tanmay S Surana