Whether parties can back out from mediation settlement?

 Defendants have not disputed the fact that they have signed the settlement agreement before the Learned Mediator. The said agreement is duly signed by all the parties and the same agreement is also signed by their respective counsel. The only reason to delete para VI of the settlement as given by the defendant No. 2 is that the plaintiff has embarrassed the defendant No. 2 in the presence of her family members at her matrimonial home.

19. I feel that it is not a valid ground to set aside the settlement reached between the parties. On emotional ground the defendant No. 2 cannot turn around and oppose the said settlement which has already been agreed by the parties at the time of modification proceedings. No sufficient reasons in this respect have been assigned by the defendant No. 2, therefore, prayer made in the application cannot be accepted.

20. The similar situation has arisen in the matter reported in Jasbir and Ors. v. State and Anr. 142 (2007) DLT 141 where the parties after settlement before the Learned Mediator tried to wriggle out of the settlement proceedings, which arrived at the time of Mediation proceedings, wherein this Court in para 9 has observed as under:

The settlement was arrive at during mediation proceedings. The Legislature has amendment Section 89 of the code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an all round attempt by the Legislature and Judiciary, as well as the Executive, to promote the settlement of disputes through the process of Mediation. Therefore, once disputes between the parties have been settled by the process of mediation, it would be in the public interest as well as to attach importance to such a process and treat the settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise, the movement of mediation may itself suffer if the parties are given to understand that even after they agree for settlement, one of the parties can still back out.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.A. No. 12888/2008 in C.S. (OS) No. 1495/2005

Decided On: 06.07.2009

Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Vs. Purshotam Lal Bajaj and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan Singh, J.

Print Page

Whether court can strike off defence of party if he fails to appear before mediator?

The reading of the above provision makes it very clear that neither Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure nor Order 10 Rule 1-A nor the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules 2005 nor the Karnataka Code of Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 provide for striking of the defence for non-appearance of the parties before the Mediator. Only Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Karnataka Code of Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 contemplates that the Court may impose cost for non-appearance of the parties before the Mediator. Hence, I am of the view that the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge striking off the defence of Defendants 1 to 3 is contrary to law and Rules referred above. If the parties fail to appear before the Mediator, the Court may impose some penalty fixing some other date to appear before the Mediator and accordingly the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge striking off the defence of the Defendants is liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 2208/2009 (GM- CPC)

Decided On: 16.04.2010

 Rudraaradya Vs.  Nanjundappa @ Nanjundaswamy and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Manohar, J.

Citation: ILR 2011Kar 221

Print Page

Whether parties can unilaterally withdraw from agreement entered before mediator?

The mediator


appointed will have to report to the court as to whether the matter is

settled or not settled. In case, the mediation has not taken place; he

will have to report, 'not mediated'. He has no duty other than the

above. The mediator cannot forward any agreement to the court to

the effect as to what course of procedure to be followed by the court

for passing a decree.

      8.    However, when the parties settled the disputes by signing

an agreement, detailing the procedures to be followed to work out

such settlement, certainly, that agreement is having all the

characteristics of compromise in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Once a compromise is arrived at between the parties, it is a

settlement of dispute referred to in the mediation pending before the

court. When the parties to the dispute sign the compromise, this

settlement comes to the public domain.           Confidentiality of the

mediation covers the matters only upto the stage of reaching at a

settlement or till the termination of the mediation. The parties when

put their signature by accepting the terms and conditions in writing,

the agreement is having all the characteristics of the compromise as

referred to under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and no party can withdraw

from it unilaterally. The moment it reaches the court, the court will


have to act upon the compromise and to pass a decree in terms of

the compromise.       No doubt, the court concerned will have to be

satisfied with the legality of the compromise as well as jurisdiction to

pass a decree based on such compromise. Once a settlement has

been arrived at between the parties in relation to the matter in the

suit, that concludes as far as the court concerned in relation to the

dispute resolved in the settlement. It is to be noted that the court

recording the compromise is entering into a satisfaction in terms or

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and the court is not merely acting upon

agreement. If one party wants to withdraw from the agreement, the

court has every power to decide whether the agreement was effected

lawfully or not. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the

dispute has been settled wholly or in part by a compromise, the court

shall pass a decree in accordance with the agreement. The proviso

to Order XXIII Rule 3 has a significant guidance in this regard.

Therefore, if in the case of denial of an agreement or in the case of

unilateral withdrawal, the court will have to enter a satisfaction

whether there was a compromise of the subject matter of the suit or

not. In fact, in the case of denial or withdrawal of the agreement, the


court is bound to frame a question in this regard and decide the

matter as contemplated under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                   MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

            15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

                                          OP(C).No. 3131 of 2016 (O)
                                                
         MOHANAN P.K.,
         V
          SUDAKSHINA RAMAKRISHNAN,
           

Print Page

Whether quashing of FIR under 498A is permissible on the basis of settlement before Mediator?

 This Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors.[2004 (8) Supreme 525], in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding against the husband, stating :

" Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.

8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue "

In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. 

Supreme Court of India

Mohd. Shamim & Ors vs Smt. Nahid Begum & Anr on 7 January, 2005

Bench: N Hegde, S Sinha

Print Page