The Bombay High Court has firmly reaffirmed that mediation cannot be imposed on any party in a civil suit, even in family disputes, if one party explicitly objects. This judgment clarifies the legal boundaries of judicial intervention in dispute resolution and underscores the consensual foundation of mediation under Indian law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present suit, filed by Plaintiffs Sugandha Hiremath and Jaidev Hiremath, seeks specific performance of a family arrangement dated 1994 concerning ancestral property in Pune. Defendant No. 1, Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani, is the brother of Plaintiff No. 1. The dispute is part of a long-standing, multi-faceted family conflict involving multiple litigations across different forums.
Key Facts
- The family dispute spans over a decade, with at least four civil suits filed between 2012 and 2025 in the District Court, Pune, and one before the Bombay High Court.
- Probate petitions are also pending before the District Court, Pune.
- Separate suits for recovery of immovable properties were filed by the parents of the parties against Defendant No. 5 (Gaurishankar Neelkanth Kalyani) in Karad and Satara Courts.
- In 2023, Plaintiff No. 1 filed the present suit for specific performance in the Bombay High Court.
- Defendant No. 1 filed an Interim Application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the suit.
- On 16 April 2026, Plaintiffs sent a three-line email to Defendant No. 1’s counsel referencing properties in dispute, but no formal settlement proposal was submitted.
- Defendant No. 1’s counsel submitted that prior attempts at reconciliation in 2025 were met with refusal by Plaintiff No. 1 due to alleged past acts of violence and intimidation.
- News reports published after court suggestions for mediation allegedly caused reputational harm to Defendant No. 1 among his investors.
Procedural History
- 1994: Family arrangement executed.
- 2012: First suit filed by Plaintiffs in District Court, Pune.
- 2018: Supreme Court directed parties to attempt mediation through mediator Mr. Shriram Panchu; mediation failed.
- 2019: Supreme Court recorded failure of mediation and directed matter to proceed on merits.
- 2023: Plaintiff No. 1 filed present suit in Bombay High Court.
- 2025: Two additional suits filed by Plaintiffs’ children in District Court, Pune; Defendant No. 1 added as party.
- 27 March 2026: Bombay HC suggested mediation; Defendant No. 1 sought instructions.
- 15 April 2026: Plaintiffs’ counsel urged mediation; matter adjourned.
- 16 April 2026: Defendant No. 1’s counsel objected to mediation, citing media backlash and prior failed attempts.
- 26 April 2026: Court granted parties liberty to exchange settlement proposals without prejudice.
- 28 April 2026: Plaintiffs sent a three-line email; no formal offer made.
- 29 April 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 4 May 2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
Plaintiffs sought referral of the matter to mediation. Defendant No. 1 opposed such referral and sought continuation of proceedings on merits.
The Legal Issue
Can a court compel mediation in a civil suit under Section 89 of the CPC or any other provision when one of the parties explicitly objects to mediation?
Arguments Presented
For the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs relied on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Constructions (2010) 8 SCC 24, R. Ravindranath v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (2026 SCC OnLine SC 150), and Mahendra Nath Soral v. Ravindra Nath Soral (2024 SCC OnLine SC 765) to argue that courts have a duty to explore settlement in family disputes. They contended that even a 1% chance of success warrants referral to mediation. They cited media reports of Supreme Court directives encouraging mediation in familial matters and argued that refusal to mediate is a tactic to prolong litigation.
For the Respondent
Defendant No. 1 argued that mediation is inherently consensual and cannot be imposed. He relied on Rupa and Co. Ltd. v. Firhad Hakim (2025 SCC OnLine SC 355), where the Supreme Court held that mediation cannot be thrust upon a party who opposes it. He highlighted that two prior mediation attempts - one by the Supreme Court and one by the District Court - had already failed. He further submitted that the Plaintiffs’ conduct, including media manipulation and failure to submit a concrete settlement proposal, demonstrated bad faith.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the statutory framework governing mediation in India. It examined the evolution of Section 89 of the CPC, the Mediation Act, 2023, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
"Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties."
The Court emphasized that the 2023 amendment to Section 89 of the CPC removed the mandatory language of "shall" and replaced it with "may," reinforcing the discretionary and consensual nature of referral. The Court noted that the phrase "which may be acceptable to the parties" remains, indicating that court referral is contingent on mutual willingness.
The Court further analyzed the Mediation Act, 2023, particularly Section 5, which states that parties "may voluntarily and with mutual consent" pursue pre-litigation mediation. Although Section 5 has not yet been notified, the Court held that its legislative intent is clear: mediation is not mandatory. The deletion of the word "shall" from the original Mediation Bill, 2021, was cited as deliberate legislative choice to preserve party autonomy.
The Court distinguished Afcons Infrastructure on the ground that it was decided under the pre-amendment Section 89 and before the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023. It also rejected reliance on Maxwell Partnership Firm and Smt. Amalapooh Mary, noting that those cases predated key legislative changes and involved commercial or non-family disputes.
The Court found no evidence of a settlement window in the present case. The Plaintiffs’ three-line email did not constitute a settlement proposal. No counter-offer was made by Defendant No. 1, nor was any gap between positions identified that could be bridged by mediation. The Court observed that the Plaintiffs had pursued parallel litigation in multiple forums, undermining their claim of genuine settlement intent.
The Court also noted the reputational harm suffered by Defendant No. 1 due to media reports following court suggestions for mediation, which further eroded trust and rendered mediation impracticable.
The Verdict
The Plaintiffs’ request to refer the matter to mediation was rejected. The Court held that mediation cannot be compelled where one party objects, and no possibility of settlement exists. The suit shall proceed on merits. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Is Non-Negotiable in Mediation
- Practitioners must advise clients that courts cannot order mediation against the will of any party, regardless of the familial nature of the dispute.
- Any attempt to pressure a party into mediation through judicial suggestion may be legally invalid and could be challenged under Rupa and Co. Ltd. v. Firhad Hakim.
- Courts must record clear reasons for concluding that mediation has a realistic chance of success before making a referral.
Strategic Use of Mediation Offers
- Settlement proposals must be substantive, documented, and exchanged in writing - vague communications or emails referencing property details are insufficient.
- Parties seeking mediation must demonstrate good faith by making concrete offers and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
- Repeated litigation while claiming settlement intent may be viewed as litigation abuse and weaken future mediation requests.
Legislative Clarity on Mediation
- The Mediation Act, 2023, confirms that mediation remains voluntary in civil suits outside commercial disputes.
- Only commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, require pre-institution mediation - this does not extend to ordinary civil suits.
- Lawyers must distinguish between mandatory pre-litigation mediation (commercial disputes) and voluntary mediation (all other civil suits).
