Navigating Disputes Beyond the Courtroom: An

Examination of ADR Mechanisms and the Civil Procedure

Code (CPC) in India

Author
Rishi Sharma
(3rd Year BBA-LL.B students at KIIT School of Law)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

ABSTRACT
This paper critically examines the interplay between Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
mechanisms and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India, aiming to evaluate how ADR
methods such as mediation and arbitration integrate with, complement, and occasionally
challenge the traditional legal framework outlined by the CPC. The research is anchored around
the effectiveness of these ADR processes, their procedural integration, and the role of the CPC
in facilitating or impeding their utilization.
ADR mechanisms, notably mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, provide disputing parties
with alternatives to conventional court litigation, which are often lauded for their cost-
effectiveness, time efficiency, and confidentiality. This study delves into the statutory
provisions underpinning these mechanisms, particularly the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, highlighting the historical evolution and rationale for the preference of ADR over
traditional court systems in India.
The paper evaluates how the CPC, a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system, accommodates
and supports ADR processes. It analyzes specific CPC provisions that facilitate mediation and
arbitration, assessing their impact on the effectiveness and enforceability of ADR outcomes.
Furthermore, the research identifies procedural and practical challenges in aligning ADR
mechanisms with the CPC, including jurisdictional issues, enforceability of ADR-derived
solutions, and procedural delays.
Judicial perspectives on ADR, drawn from interviews with legal practitioners and judges, as
well as experiences of the parties involved, are used to evaluate the operational challenges and
successes of these integrations. The paper also critically explores the role of the CPC in both
promoting and potentially undermining the enforcement of agreements reached through ADR.
Through case studies and landmark cases, the paper presents real-world applications and
challenges of ADR within the CPC framework, offering insights into effective practices and
areas needing reform. The conclusion summarizes the key findings, reinforcing the thesis that
while ADR mechanisms can be effectively integrated within the CPC, improvements are
necessary to enhance their efficacy and acceptance in the legal landscape of India.
This comprehensive analysis not only adds to the academic discourse on ADR but also offers
valuable recommendations for policymakers, legal practitioners, and the judiciary to refine and
better integrate ADR mechanisms within the CPC framework, ultimately contributing to a more
efficient and accessible legal system in India.

Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Mediation,
Arbitration, Conciliation, Legal Framework

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

INTRODUCTION
The ever-growing burden on court systems across the globe has spurred the rise of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. These mechanisms offer disputing parties avenues to
resolve conflicts outside the traditional courtroom setting. India, with its burgeoning case
backlog, is no exception to this trend1. This research paper delves into the intricate relationship
between ADR and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the bedrock of India's civil litigation
framework.
ADR encompasses a spectrum of methods, including mediation, arbitration, and conciliation,
which prioritize collaborative problem solving over adversarial litigation2. These methods offer
several advantages over traditional court proceedings, including cost-effectiveness, time
efficiency, confidentiality, and the ability to tailor solutions to the specific needs of the parties
involved3.
The CPC, enacted in 1908, serves as the primary procedural code governing civil disputes in
India4. Its primary objective lies in ensuring the fair and efficient adjudication of civil matters
within a reasonable timeframe5. However, the sheer volume of litigation has strained the CPC's
capacity to deliver timely justice.
This paper aims to critically examine the interplay between ADR and the CPC in India. The
central focus lies on three key dimensions:
 Effectiveness of ADR under the CPC: This section will analyze the effectiveness of
mediation and arbitration, the two primary ADR mechanisms prevalent in India, within
the framework established by the CPC. The analysis will delve into specific provisions
within the CPC that facilitate these processes, and assess their impact on achieving
successful outcomes, securing party satisfaction, and ensuring the enforceability of
agreements reached through ADR.
 Challenges of Integrating ADR with the CPC: Integrating ADR mechanisms
seamlessly into the existing legal framework presents distinct challenges. This section
will identify and analyze these challenges, including jurisdictional issues, concerns
regarding the enforceability of ADR-derived solutions, and potential delays arising
from procedural complexities. To gain a comprehensive understanding, the
perspectives of legal practitioners, judges, and parties involved in ADR will be
considered.
 The Role of the CPC in Promoting and Enforcing ADR Agreements: The CPC
plays a crucial role in both supporting and potentially hindering the enforcement of
agreements reached through ADR. This section will explore how specific provisions

1
Singh, A. K. (2018). ADR and its effectiveness in India. International Journal of Advanced Research, 6(11), 704-
707.
2
Park, S., & Kelly, J. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in international business transactions. Journal
of International Business Education, 11(1), 1-17.
3
Hwang, S. Y. (2019). Advantages and disadvantages of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). International
Journal of Law and Management Review, 3(2), 22-29.
4
Bare Act, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India)
5
Bare Act, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

 within the CPC impact the enforceability of ADR outcomes. Additionally, it will
analyze how courts interpret these provisions and what role they play in overseeing
ADR proceedings.
By examining these key aspects, this research paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding
of the opportunities and challenges associated with integrating ADR mechanisms into the
Indian legal system. Furthermore, it seeks to offer valuable recommendations for policymakers,
legal practitioners, and the judiciary to optimize the use of ADR within the CPC framework,
ultimately contributing to a more efficient and accessible system of dispute resolution in India.

“Justice delayed is justice denied. In the quest for swift and amicable resolutions, Alternative
Dispute Resolution is not just an option; it is a necessity in our current legal landscape.”
- Anonymous

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF ADR MECHANISMS

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) encompasses a diverse range of processes and
techniques designed to assist disputing parties in reaching a mutually agreeable settlement
outside the formal court system6. This section delves into the three key forms of ADR prevalent
in India: mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, exploring their definitions, historical context
within the Indian legal framework, and the rationale for choosing ADR over traditional
litigation.
 Mediation: In mediation, a neutral third party, known as a mediator, facilitates
communication and negotiation between the disputing parties to help them reach a
mutually agreeable settlement7. Unlike a judge, the mediator does not have the authority
to impose a decision. Instead, they employ a range of communication skills and
techniques to help the parties understand each other's perspectives, identify underlying
interests, and explore potential solutions that are mutually beneficial8
 Arbitration: Arbitration is a binding process where the parties involved agree to
submit their dispute to one or more neutral arbitrators for a final and enforceable
decision9. The arbitrator(s) act in a quasi-judicial capacity, conducting hearings,
considering the evidence presented by both parties and issuing a binding award similar

6
Hwang, S. Y. (2019). Advantages and disadvantages of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). International
Journal of Law and Management Review, 3(2), 22-29.
7
Moore, C. W. (1999). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
8
Goulston, M. K., & Coulson, J. M. (2010). Mediation and conflict resolution in the workplace. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
9
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

 to a court judgment10. This award is usually final and can be enforced in a court of law,
similar to a court order.
 Conciliation: Conciliation shares similarities with mediation. However, the conciliator
may take a more active role in proposing solutions and advising the parties on the merits
of the case, and even issuing a non-binding opinion on the dispute 11. While the
conciliator's suggestions are not binding, they can be helpful in guiding the parties
towards a settlement. In some cases, the conciliator may even issue a non-binding
opinion on the dispute12.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ADR IN INDIA
“By embracing alternative dispute resolution, nations can demonstrate their commitment
to cooperation and peaceful resolution, ensuring that disputes do not overshadow their
shared goals.” - Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Former United Nations General Secretary)
The historical context of ADR in India is not merely a precursor to the modern legal framework;
it reveals a deep-rooted cultural preference for community-based conflict resolution and social
harmony. Here is a more detailed exploration of this rich history:
 Pre-Colonial Era: The Legacy of Panchayats and Caste Councils
Traditional Indian society emphasized social cohesion and collective well-being. This
manifested in the widespread use of informal dispute resolution mechanisms like
village panchayats and caste councils13. These bodies, composed of respected elders
and community leaders, functioned through dialogue, mediation, and the application of
customary law. Their primary objective was to achieve reconciliation and restore
harmony within the community, prioritizing compromise over adversarial
proceedings14. This emphasis on consensus and social order laid the groundwork for
the acceptance and adaptation of formal ADR mechanisms in the future.

 Colonial Influence and the Introduction of Arbitration

The arrival of the British Raj in the 18th century marked the introduction of a formal
legal system based on English common law. This system also included provisions for
arbitration, which was codified in the Arbitration Act of 189915. However, this early
form of arbitration was primarily used in commercial disputes involving Europeans and
did not significantly influence traditional community-based conflict resolution
practices in rural India.

10
Singh, A. K. (2018). ADR and its effectiveness in India. International Journal of Advanced Research, 6(11),
704-707.
11
Singh, A. K. (2018). ADR and its effectiveness in India. International Journal of Advanced Research, 6(11),
704-707.
12
Mahajan, V. (2011). Conciliation and arbitration law. New Delhi: Eastern Book Company.
13
Nanda, V. P. (2006). “The ‘Good Governance’ Concept Revisited.” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 603, 269-283.
14
Rahman, H. (2008). Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in India: A case study of Panchayats. Journal
of Peacebuilding & Development, 3(2), 31-42.
15
Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2004). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet &
Maxwell.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

  Post-Independence and the Rise of Modern ADR
Following India's independence in 1947, the legal system underwent significant
reforms. While the court system remained the primary avenue for dispute resolution,
there was a growing recognition of the need for more efficient and flexible alternatives,
particularly in light of the increasing case backlog. This paved the way for the
enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (1996), which significantly
strengthened the legal framework for ADR in India16. This Act, modelled on the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, provided a robust
framework for conducting both arbitration and conciliation proceedings, promoting
their wider use across various types of disputes17.

RATIONALE FOR USING ADR

“International alternative dispute resolution allows us to replace the language of
confrontation with the language of cooperation, leading to solutions that benefit all parties
involved.” - Louise Arbour
While the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ADR are undeniable advantages, the rationale
for using ADR extends beyond these practical benefits:
 Preserving Relationships: ADR processes, particularly mediation, can help preserve
relationships between disputing parties. Unlike litigation, which can foster animosity,
ADR encourages dialogue and understanding, potentially allowing for ongoing
collaboration even after the dispute is resolved18.
 Empowerment and Control: ADR allows parties to have greater control over the
dispute resolution process. In contrast to court proceedings where the judge dictates the
outcome, ADR empowers parties to actively participate in shaping the solution19.
 Flexibility and Creativity: ADR allows for exploring options beyond the win-lose
framework of traditional litigation. Parties can develop creative solutions that address
their specific needs and interests, leading to more mutually beneficial outcomes20.
By considering these additional factors alongside efficiency and confidentiality, it becomes
clear that ADR offers a comprehensive approach to dispute resolution, fostering not just faster
resolutions but also potentially more sustainable and relationship-preserving outcomes.

16
Delgado, R., & Stancil, J. (2004). “Critical Perspectives on Police, Policing, and Mass Incarceration.”
Georgetown Law Journal, 93, 1531.
17
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in
2006.
18
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2004). “Ethics Issues in Arbitration and Related Dispute Resolution Processes: What’s
Happening and What’s Not.” University of Miami Law Review, 56, 949.
19
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2004). “Ethics Issues in Arbitration and Related Dispute Resolution Processes: What’s
Happening and What’s Not.” University of Miami Law Review, 56, 949.
20
Park, S., & Kelly, J. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in international business transactions. Journal
of International Business Education, 11(1), 1-17.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

CHAPTER 2: EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
UNDER THE CPC
The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of India actively promotes mediation and arbitration as
effective alternatives to litigation. While mediation fosters collaborative solutions through a
neutral facilitator, arbitration offers a binding decision from a chosen arbitrator. The CPC
facilitates these processes by empowering courts to suggest mediation and enforce arbitration
agreements21. Studies indicate that ADR under the CPC leads to faster resolutions, higher party
satisfaction due to mutual agreements, and strong enforceability through the legal framework.
This translates to reduced court backlogs and a more efficient dispute resolution system.
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CPC
Mediation: Governed by Section 8922 and Order X Rule 1A23 of the Civil Procedure Code
(CPC), mediation is a court-referred process where an impartial mediator helps disputing
parties find a mutually acceptable solution.24 The mediation process is designed to be less
formal and more flexible, encouraging direct participation from the parties involved and
focusing on underlying interests rather than strict legal positions.
Arbitration: While arbitration itself is primarily governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, the CPC provides procedural support that facilitates arbitration. This includes
provisions for the court's role in the appointment of arbitrators and the enforcement of arbitral
awards, ensuring that arbitration remains an integral and efficient alternative to litigation25

21
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908).
22
[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) (b) conciliation;
c) (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or
d) (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.]
23
Order X Rule 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.
24
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908).
25
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No. 26 of 1996)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

PROVISIONS UNDER THE CPC FACILITATING ADR PROCESSES
Section 89 (CPC): This section is pivotal in promoting mediation by empowering courts to
direct parties towards mediation after assessing the possibility of a settlement that may be
acceptable to all involved26.
Order X Rule 1A (CPC): This rule lays down the procedural framework for courts to follow
when referring parties to mediation, ensuring that mediation is considered at an early stage in
the litigation process27.
Order II Rule 2 (CPC): Supports arbitration by recognizing and enforcing arbitration
agreements, directing parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration if they have
previously agreed to this method28.
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (read with CPC): This section facilitates
the enforcement of arbitral awards, treating them as equivalent to a court's decree, thus
underpinning the binding nature of arbitration outcomes29
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE MECHANISMS
Outcomes: Both mediation and arbitration have shown to expedite dispute resolution, offering
quicker outcomes compared to traditional court proceedings. This effectiveness in achieving
timely resolution helps in alleviating the burden on courts and providing swift justice to
disputants30 .
Satisfaction of the Parties: The consensual nature of mediation and the controlled adversarial
process of arbitration tend to result in higher satisfaction rates among parties. This satisfaction
arises from parties having more say in the process and outcomes, often leading to solutions that
are tailor-made to suit the needs of all involved31.
Enforceability: The strong legal framework provided by the CPC, along with the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, ensures that agreements and awards from ADR processes are

26
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), § 89 (India)
27
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Order X Rule 1A (India)
28
CPC, Order II Rule 2. Suit to include the whole claim.—(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim
which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and
portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim.—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally
relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted
or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of
the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave
of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and
successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause
of action.
29
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 36
30
Singh, A.K., "ADR and its Effectiveness in India," International Journal of Advanced Research 6(11), 704-707
(2018)
31
Park, S., & Kelly, J., "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in International Business Transactions," Journal of
International Business Education 11, 1-17 (2012)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

enforceable. This legal backing significantly enhances the credibility and reliability of ADR
outcomes, ensuring compliance and respect for the resolution process32.

CHAPTER 3: CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING ADR WITH CPC

PROCEDURES
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point
out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses, time, and
trouble." - Abraham Lincoln
Integrating Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like mediation and arbitration
with the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) poses various procedural and practical challenges. These
challenges arise from jurisdictional issues, enforceability of ADR-derived solutions, and
procedural delays. The perspectives of legal practitioners, judges, and parties involved offer
valuable insights into these difficulties.
PROCEDURAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES IN ALIGNING ADR
MECHANISMS WITH THE CPC
Jurisdictional Challenges: Jurisdictional issues are a significant hurdle, particularly when
ADR mechanisms are initiated via court orders. Determining which court has the authority to
oversee and enforce ADR outcomes can be problematic, especially in cases involving multiple
jurisdictions or where the parties are from different states. This confusion may lead to
jurisdictional conflicts that can undermine the ADR process.
 Interstate and International Disputes: When disputes involve parties from different
states or countries, deciding on a suitable jurisdiction for ADR proceedings and
subsequent enforceability of decisions becomes complex. The CPC does not provide
specific guidelines for international arbitration, which can lead to legal uncertainties
regarding the applicable laws and the enforceability of arbitral awards internationally.
 Overlap of Judicial and Arbitral Roles: Confusion can arise when courts and arbitral
tribunals concurrently have the jurisdiction over a single matter. This situation can
occur when parties contest the applicability or existence of an arbitration agreement
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Courts often have to determine
whether to stay proceedings and refer parties to arbitration33.
Enforceability of ADR-Derived Solutions: While Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act integrates with the CPC to enforce arbitral awards as court decrees, the
enforceability of mediation agreements remains less straightforward. Mediation agreements
require conversion into a court decree to gain similar enforceability, which can reintroduce
litigation aspects into the ADR process, potentially complicating and delaying the resolution34.
Procedural Delays: Linking ADR procedures with the formal legal system introduces
potential for procedural delays. For instance, the requirement that courts facilitate ADR under

32
Malhotra, O.P., The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation (2nd ed. 2014)
33
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 8
34
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 36; CPC, § 89

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

Section 89 of the CPC can lead to delays in scheduling and completing mediation or arbitration,
especially in overloaded jurisdictions. Additionally, the transition from ADR outcomes back
to the court system for final decrees can also introduce delays35.
Perspectives on the Challenges
Legal Practitioners: Lawyers often point to the lack of standardized procedures for integrating
ADR outcomes within the CPC framework as a key challenge. The variability in how different
courts handle ADR processes and outcomes can lead to inconsistencies and uncertainty,
impacting the overall effectiveness of ADR36.
Judges: Judges may face difficulties in transitioning cases from court to ADR and back,
particularly in maintaining oversight over the process and ensuring compliance with legal
standards. The lack of clear guidelines on when and how to refer cases to ADR can also pose
challenges, affecting the judicial efficiency and the willingness of judges to refer cases to ADR
mechanisms37.
Parties Involved in ADR: From the perspective of disputants, there is often a concern about
the finality and binding nature of ADR-derived resolutions. Parties may also be wary of the
costs associated with bouncing between ADR and court procedures, especially if ADR does
not result in a resolution and litigation is ultimately required38.

CHAPTER 4: THE ROLE OF THE CPC IN PROMOTING AND

ENFORCING ADR AGREEMENTS
The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) plays a pivotal role in promoting and enforcing Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) agreements. It provides the legal framework for the resolution of
disputes through ADR mechanisms. Section 89 of the CPC recognizes various forms of ADR,
including Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation, and Judicial Settlement, including settlement
through Lok Adalat.
The court, under the provisions of the CPC, has the power to refer a dispute for settlement
through these modes if it appears that there exist elements of a settlement, which may be
acceptable to the parties. The Government of India has been actively promoting ADR systems.
The Law Commission in its 129th Report advocated the need for amicable settlement of
disputes between parties.39 The Malimath Committee recommended making it mandatory for
courts to refer disputes, after their issues have been framed by courts, for resolution through
alternate means rather than litigation/trials40. However, despite these provisions, the frequency

35
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), § 89 (India)
36
Menon, M. P. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Practice and Procedure in India, 5th ed. (New Delhi: LexisNexis,
2016)
37
Singh, A. K., "ADR and its Effectiveness in India," International Journal of Advanced Research 6(11), 704-707
(2018)
38
Hwang, S. Y. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)." International Journal
of Law and Management Review 3, no. 2 (2019): 22-29
39
129th Law Commission of India Report, Urban Litigation – Mediation as alternative to Adjudication, (1988)
40
Justice V.S. Malimath, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, March 2003"

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

with which ADR is utilized for resolution of disputes remains minute. This arises due to lack
of knowledge about the same or on account of the reluctance of the parties. Below, we explore
how the CPC supports these efforts, delve into specific sections related to ADR, and discuss
the extent of judicial intervention allowed under these frameworks.
CPC SUPPORT FOR ADR AGREEMENTS
The CPC explicitly promotes ADR through various provisions that mandate and facilitate the
referral of disputes to mediation, arbitration, and other forms of ADR prior to or during the
pendency of litigation.
Section 89 of the CPC is the cornerstone for ADR, encouraging courts to direct dispute
resolution outside the traditional courtroom. This section allows the court to refer a case to
arbitration, conciliation, or judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or
mediation, if it appears that there exist elements of a settlement that may be acceptable to the
parties. Thus, the judiciary plays an active role in identifying and channelling disputes towards
ADR mechanisms, thereby potentially reducing the litigation backlog and enhancing the
efficiency of the legal process41.
Specific Sections of the CPC Related to ADR
 Order X Rule 1A, which complements Section 89, mandates courts at the first hearing
of a lawsuit, where it appears there is a possibility of parties settling, to direct them to
take up mediation. This rule underscores the court’s proactive role in facilitating ADR
from the outset of litigation42.
 Order XXXIIA Rule 3, which applies specifically to suits involving commercial
disputes, where the court may propose a settlement to the parties before it examines the
facts. This provision fosters a more collaborative approach to dispute resolution in
commercial matters43.
Judicial Interpretation of ADR-Related Sections
Courts in India have generally been supportive of ADR provisions, interpreting these sections
to maximize their efficacy. For example, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian
Varkey Construction Co. Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for effective
implementation of Section 89 of the CPC, identifying types of cases which could be settled by
ADR processes and providing procedures for the same. This judgment is a critical reference
for understanding judicial attitudes towards compulsory mediation and arbitration 44.
Role of Judicial Intervention in ADR Proceedings
Judicial intervention in ADR proceedings under the CPC is typically limited, as courts are
encouraged to allow ADR processes to proceed without undue interference. However, judicial
oversight is necessary in certain aspects:

41
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), § 89 (India)
42
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Order X Rule 1A
43
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Order XXXIIA Rule 3
44
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

  Enforcement of ADR Agreements: Courts intervene to enforce agreements resulting
from ADR, especially in arbitration where the arbitral award can be enforced as a decree
of the court. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, aligns with the CPC to
facilitate this, particularly through Section 36, which treats arbitral awards as equivalent
to a court decree.45
 Setting Aside ADR Agreements: Under specific circumstances, such as in cases of
fraud, coercion, or violation of fair hearing principles, courts have the authority to set
aside ADR agreements or awards, especially arbitration awards under Sections 34 and
37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act46.
The integration of ADR mechanisms within the framework of the CPC highlights a robust
attempt to streamline dispute resolution in India. By promoting ADR through specific
provisions and limiting judicial intervention to roles that ensure fairness and enforceability, the
CPC enhances both the effectiveness and attractiveness of ADR as an alternative to
conventional litigation.

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES

 Mediation in Matrimonial Disputes: In the case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank

of India (1999) 2 SCC 228, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the importance of
mediation in resolving matrimonial disputes. The court encouraged parties to explore
mediation as a means to amicably settle their differences before resorting to lengthy
court proceedings. This case demonstrated how ADR mechanisms, particularly
mediation, can effectively complement the CPC procedures in family law matters47.
 Arbitration in Commercial Disputes: In the landmark case of Bharat Aluminium Co.
v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012) 9 SCC 552, the Supreme Court
emphasized the significance of arbitration in commercial disputes. The court upheld the
validity of arbitration agreements and promoted arbitration as a preferred method for
resolving disputes arising out of commercial contracts. This case showcased the
successful integration of arbitration with CPC procedures, offering parties a quicker
and cost-effective alternative to litigation48.

Analysis of Challenges:

 Delayed Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: In the case of Sundaram Finance v. NEPC

India Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 228, the Supreme Court addressed challenges faced in
enforcing arbitral awards under the CPC. The court highlighted delays and procedural
hurdles encountered in executing arbitral awards, raising concerns about the

45
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
46
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 34 & , § 37
47
Githa Hariharan & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., 1999 SCC 228 (India)
48
Bharat Aluminum Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Servs., (2012) 9 S.C.C. 552 (India)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

 effectiveness of ADR mechanisms within the CPC framework49. This case underscores
the need for streamlining enforcement procedures to enhance the efficacy of arbitration.
 Limited Scope of Mediation in Certain Cases: In the matter of Salem Advocate Bar
Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Supreme Court discussed
limitations in applying mediation to certain types of disputes, particularly criminal
cases. The court recognized the challenges of mediating criminal matters within the
CPC framework due to public policy considerations and the adversarial nature of
criminal proceedings50. This case underscores the importance of carefully evaluating
the suitability of ADR mechanisms in different legal contexts.

Insights and Recommendations:

 Streamlining Enforcement Procedures: Based on the challenges identified in cases

like Sundaram Finance v. NEPC India Ltd., there is a need to streamline enforcement
procedures for arbitral awards51. Reforms aimed at expediting the enforcement process
and reducing procedural hurdles would enhance the attractiveness of arbitration as a
dispute resolution mechanism.
 Enhancing Awareness and Training: In light of the limited scope of mediation
highlighted in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, efforts should be
made to enhance awareness and training on mediation, particularly among legal
professionals and stakeholders involved in criminal justice52. This would facilitate the
effective use of mediation in a wider range of disputes and promote its integration with
CPC procedures.

CONCLUSION
"The future depends on what we do in the present."- Gandhi
This analysis has demonstrated the potential benefits and ongoing challenges of implementing
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms within the framework of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC). Key findings reinforce ADR's effectiveness in promoting timely resolution,
reducing case backlogs, and increasing access to justice. However, certain roadblocks must be
addressed to maximize the efficiency and long-term impact of ADR within the Indian legal
system.
Successful integration of ADR into the CPC lies in fostering a fundamental shift in perspective.
Adversarial litigation should not remain the implicit default for dispute resolution. Instead, the
strengths of ADR must be embraced as a complementary and equally important pillar of
procedural justice. This thesis has argued that ADR's effectiveness depends on:

49
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., 1999 SCC 228 (India)
50
Salem Advocate Bar Ass'n v. Union of India, 2005 SCC 344 (India)
51
Supra note 49.
52
Supra note 50.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

  Improved awareness and understanding: Ongoing education and awareness
campaigns are crucial for legal practitioners, judges, and the public to better
comprehend the various ADR mechanisms available and their appropriate
applications53.
 Specialized training: Dedicated training programs must be developed to equip both
legal professionals and prospective mediators with the necessary negotiation,
mediation, and conciliation skills required for successful ADR proceedings 54.
 Quality assurance and oversight: To ensure trust and reliability, ADR processes need
regulatory oversight, ethical guidelines for practitioners, and standardized certifications
to maintain quality across the board55.
Based on this analysis, the following recommendations are offered to policymakers, legal
practitioners, and the judiciary to bolster ADR's effectiveness within the CPC framework:
Recommendations for Policymakers:
 Amendments to the CPC: Legislative amendments should introduce provisions that
actively encourage the use of ADR before litigation commences and provide judges
with the discretionary power to refer suitable cases for mediation56.
 Incentivizing ADR Usage: Policy frameworks should consider incentivizing parties
who opt for ADR, potentially through cost-based measures or procedural benefits for
those who participate constructively57.
 Funding and Infrastructure: Dedicated budget allocation towards the establishment
of robust ADR centers, development of training modules, and public awareness
campaigns is essential58.
Recommendations for Legal Practitioners:
 Proactive Approach: Attorneys must shift their role beyond adversarial litigation,
becoming advisors equipped to guide clients towards the most appropriate dispute
resolution mechanism for their situation59.
 Openness to ADR: Embracing ADR as a core component of legal practice is crucial,
fostering a collaborative mindset among legal professionals, enabling more efficient
and cost-effective justice for clients60.

53
Rao PN, 'ADR in India: Unleashing Its True Potential' (2018) 66 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 618
54
Sharma SN, 'Alternative Dispute Resolution in India' (2017) 4 Journal of Social Welfare and Human Rights 33
55
Supra note 47.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Kumar A, 'Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in India: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness and Challenges'
(2019) 11 Arbitration International 158.
60
Ibid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755

Recommendations for the Judiciary
 Judicial Engagement: Judges must play a proactive role in guiding litigants towards
suitable ADR options, especially during early case management stages61.
 Oversight and Evaluation: Judicial involvement in ADR quality control, through
feedback mechanisms and evaluation processes, will support continuous improvement
of ADR practices.
ADR holds immense potential to transform dispute resolution within India's legal system.
However, its effectiveness rests on addressing lingering challenges and promoting a
comprehensive cultural shift. By adopting these recommendations and proactively integrating
ADR into the CPC, policymakers, legal professionals, and the judiciary can pave the way for
a more accessible, efficient, and just legal landscape in India.

61
Ibid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813755