D D A Vs. HAPPY HIMALAYA CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties for final disposal.

(2.) THE dispute centers on the interpretation of Section 89 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:-"89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court. " (1) Where it appears to the court that there exists 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) Where 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. "

(3.) NEEDLESS to state, resolution of disputes through Alternative dispute Resolution Mechanism has to be encouraged and hence every attempt has to be made to interpret Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which broadens the span of the sweep of the words of the section but with caution. It would be impermissible for a Court to violate the mandate of the legislature, by, under the garb of interpretation re-write a statute.