wastage of time only. for the last sixty years the mediation and dialogue failed.the decision of the court of law is the only solution.

Only one defendant made application under section 89 CPC for refering the case to mediation. None of the plaintiffs and remaining defendants are supporting the application,but Justice Sharma, who is retiring has issued a dissenting note pleading for deferment. Two of the justices have held there exists no element of settlement by way of mediation. But the SC order has given new twist to the controversy.Justice Gokhale, as CJ HC, had earlier re-appointed another HC Justice, Srivastava in this very case in the past on the same ground, that he has been hearing the case. Nothing happened. Now he is hinting the same course in the event of Justice Sharma's retirement, who is retiring on Oct. 1, 2010. It appears all attempts are in the direction to enable Justice Sharma's re-appointment. SC is requested to let the matter be decided by the HC within this month.Too much money and time has already been spent.
With due respect, may I add that,there is no public interest involved, no miscarriage of justice and it is not a fit case for the SC to interfere. Let the litigation end in the HC. SC will have another opportunity, after the appeal is taken to the SC.

How do a petition under s.89 of the CPC be filed to extend time for pronouncing judgement? The section applies only when the court considers that there is an element of settlement between the parties.At times like this the court may refer the case for Arbitration/Conciliation/Lok Adalat/Mediation etc.Since the court is only bound to refer the case how a prayer for posponment of judgement be prayed for under s.89 CPC..? Petition ought to have been filed under s.151 of CPC..