Delhi High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Sunil Tyagi on 12 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O. Ref. No. 01/2016
% 12th November, 2018
ROHIT KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Avani Malik, Mr. Deepak
Narayan and Mr. Yuvraj
Mishra, Advocates
(8800994493)
versus
SUNIL TYAGI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae) (9999670588)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a Reference under Section 113 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the Court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Singh, Civil Judge-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
whereby the learned trial court has framed the following questions for
being answered by this Court.
"i. The manner in which Mediation Rules 2004 were framed in
Delhi.
ii. Does Affcons judgment affect the above position?
iii. Can Rule-25 be justified under general rule making power?
iv. When will an Institution or person become Lok Adalat?
v. What are the relevant provisions of LSA Act applicable to
mediation?
vi. Can it be said that provisions of LSA Act will not apply to
mediation?
vii. Section-89(2)(c) is an illustration of legislation by
reference.
viii. Whether contrary observation of Affcons is a binding
precedent.
ix. Observations of second Salem Bar case regarding visible
record of mediation.
x. Affcons vs. second Sale Bar case: a legal dichotomy.
xi. Rules vs. statutory enactment: which one will prevail?
xii. Validity of Rule 25 of Mediation Rules 2004.
xiii. Can mediation rules talking about procedure of pre referral
court related matter be justified?
xiv. Can mediation rules related to actual mediation be justified
to some extent?
xv. Can criminal compoundable cases be sent for mediation?"
2. Very frankly in my opinion, none of the aforesaid
questions which have been sent as Reference to be answered by this
Court really need to be answered, because the admitted position of
facts on the basis of which the above-stated questions have been
framed to be answered by this Court under Section 113 CPC are that
there existed an agreement in writing between the parties to the suit
before the Mediation Centre. This agreement in writing was also
signed by the parties. Once that is so then the requirements of Order
XXIII Rule 3 CPC are satisfied and which provides that a court can
dispose of a suit once it is found that the parties by a written
agreement signed by them have agreed to settle the disputes which are
subject matter of the suit in a particular manner. Order XXIII Rule 3
CPC does not require filing of a joint application signed by the parties
and supported by their affidavits, and all that is required is that there
should be an agreement in writing signed by the parties, and which is
an admitted position in this case because parties have entered into a
settlement in writing under the signatures before the Mediation Centre,
and which is sufficient for disposal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule
3 CPC. No other aspect therefore was required to be looked into by
the trial court for disposing of the suit and no issue therefore arises
with respect to any of the questions framed by the trial court for being
answered by this Court under Section 113 CPC.
3. The Reference is accordingly disposed of by observing
that once there is an agreement in writing signed by the parties settling
the disputes which are subject matter of a suit, whether such written
signed agreement is entered into by means of an application signed by
the parties filed in Court, or the written signed agreement is entered
into outside the Court including in mediation proceedings, then the
requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC are satisfied, and the Court
in such a situation has to dispose of a suit in terms of the aforesaid
agreed written settlement agreement between the parties signed by
them, which falls under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
4. The Reference is answered accordingly and be sent by the
Registry of this Court to the concerned court.
NOVEMBER 12, 2018/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
