The legal system established by the British was both costly and prolonged, leading to a decline in the public’s trust in it. After gaining independence, it became evident that there was a necessity for an alternative method of resolving conflicts that would be cost-effective and less time-consuming. As a result, priority was given to the development of scientifically designed alternative methods for resolving conflicts or disputes. The traditional alternative methods for resolving disputes such as arbitration, conciliation, and mediation have attracted the attention of the international community. This traditional alternative way of settling disputes has been prevalent not just in India, but also in China, England, and the United States of America for a long time. Today, the global business community strongly believes that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the sole method to overcome the drawbacks of the current legal system.

It is a universally admitted fact that arbitration, conciliation and mediation are efficient alternative means for resolving disputes. Undoubtedly, these alternative means are not time consuming which are in facts very important for protection of commercial relationship.

Section 89 CPC settlement of disputes outside the court-

[89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court -(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for:

(a) arbitration;

(b) conciliation;

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat: or

(d) mediation.

(2) Were a dispute has been referred—

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;

(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall. Apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.]

Order x of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE:

  1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied-At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the opposite party, and as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. The Court shall record such admissions and denials.

1[1A. Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.

After recording the admissions and denials, the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section. (1) of section 89. On the option of the parties, the court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties.

1. Added by Act No. 46 of 1999, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1 -7-2002). 

1B. Appearance before the conciliatory forum or authority 

Where a suit is referred under rule 1 A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit. 

1C. Appearance before the court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation
Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the presiding officer of conciliation forum or authority is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, then, it shall refer the matter again to the Court and direct the parties to appear before the court on the date fixed by it.]

1[2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party 

(1)At the first hearing of the suit, the Court-

(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and

(b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied.

(2) At any subsequent hearing, the Court may orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied.

(3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of an examination under this rule questions suggested by either party.]

1. Sub. by Act No. 104 of 1976, for rule 2, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

13. Substance of examination to be written

The substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing by the Judge, and shall form part of the record. 

1. This rule is not applicable to the Chief Court of Oudh, see the Oudh Court Act, 1925 (U.P. 4 of 1925), sec. 16(2).

4. Consequence of refusal or inability of pleader to answer

(1) Where the pleader of any party who appears by a pleader or any such person accompanying a pleader as is referred to in rule 2, refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit which the Court is of opinion that the party whom he represents ought to answer, and is likely to be able to answer if interrogated in person, the Court 1[may postpone the hearing of the suit to a day not later than seven days from the date of first hearing] and direct that such party shall appear in person on such day.

(2) If such party fails without lawful excuse to appear in person on the day so appointed, the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such Order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.

  1. Subs, by Act No. 46 of 1999, section 20 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002) for “may postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day”.

NEED FOR ADR:

There are numerous unresolved cases in the court that have not been adjudicated yet. As the number of cases continues to rise each day, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the court to address every matter, particularly minor cases. to be the general consensus that The concept of “justice delayed is justice denied” emphasizes the importance of promptly delivering justice in order to prevent its deprivation. Alternative dispute mechanisms were created on 4th December, 1993 due to these factors.

Afcons Infrastructure’s Case  

A rundown of issues made by the court which might be gone under the ambit of ADR cases like political race request, instances of extortion, fraud, compulsion, and so on, suit of title, guarantee against minor are unsatisfactory for the reference of ADR. Cases connected with exchange, trade, and agreement, misdeed cases or buyer questions are reasonable under ADR.

Saleem Advocate Bar Association’s Case

Concerning the protected legitimacy of Segment 89, it was held that all endeavors will be made by the court at the earliest phase of the case to resolve their question with the assistance of any system which is given. Consequently, the court might not drive at any point any party to include in an ADR system. It is the freedom of thought of the gatherings and commonly assent of both the gatherings.

ENHANCING ACCESS TO JUSTICE

A fundamental principle underlying the amalgamation of ADR and CPC is the enhancement of access to justice. While the traditional litigation process prescribed by the CPC ensures legal recourse, it often proves to be time-consuming, expensive, and adversarial. On the contrary, ADR mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation offer parties a flexible, cost-effective, and collaborative platform to resolve disputes swiftly. By integrating ADR provisions within the CPC, the legal system can offer litigants a spectrum of dispute resolution options tailored to their specific needs, thereby democratizing access to justice.

MITIGATING COURT BACKLOG

The burgeoning backlog of cases burdening judicial infrastructure underscores the urgency of integrating ADR with CPC. The conventional adversarial litigation model perpetuates delays, exacerbating the backlog crisis. Conversely, ADR mechanisms promote expeditious dispute resolution, alleviating the strain on courts and diminishing backlog. By institutionalizing ADR within the CPC framework, the legal system can harness the efficiency of ADR to unclog court dockets, ensuring timely adjudication of disputes and upholding the sanctity of judicial time.

COLLABORATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The ethos of ADR, rooted in cooperation and consensus-building, stands in stark contrast to the adversarial nature of traditional litigation. Integrating ADR into CPC encourages parties to adopt a collaborative approach to dispute resolution, steering away from acrimony and confrontation. Mediation, for instance, empowers parties to engage in constructive dialogue under the guidance of a neutral mediator, facilitating mutually acceptable solutions. By imbuing CPC with ADR mechanisms, the legal system can foster a culture of cooperation, fostering amicable resolutions and preserving interpersonal relationships.

PROMOTING EFFICENCY AND COST- EFFECTIVENESS

The procedural rigidity inherent in CPC often translates into exorbitant litigation costs, rendering justice inaccessible to many. ADR, characterized by its flexibility and informality, offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional litigation. Integrating ADR provisions within the CPC empowers litigants to opt for alternative avenues of dispute resolution tailored to their financial constraints and preferences. By minimizing procedural formalities and encouraging direct engagement between parties, the integration of ADR and CPC promises to optimize resource allocation, making justice more affordable and efficient.

CONCLUSION

The convergence of ADR and CPC represents a paradigm shift in the domain of dispute resolution, marking a departure from the adversarial litigation model towards a more collaborative and accessible framework. By institutionalizing ADR within the procedural fabric delineated by the CPC, the legal system can usher in an era of expeditious, cost-effective, and equitable dispute resolution. As stakeholders continue to recognize the imperative for synergy between ADR and CPC, concerted efforts must be directed towards enacting reforms that promote the seamless integration of these complementary mechanisms, thereby fortifying the edifice of justice and safeguarding the rights of litigants.

Need to get in touch with our experts? It’s easy!
Contact us today!