Can Uniform Format Be Established For Incorporating Terms Of Settlement In Judicial Orders For ADR Cases: Kerala High Court Considers

The Court passed the above order in a suo moto petition initiated by the Registry seeking to establish a uniform practice and procedure for incorporating settlement terms while preparing judgments, decrees, and orders in cases settled by mediation etc.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S.Manu observed that it might not be feasible to issue judicial directions prescribing a specific format for judicial orders, in the absence of statutory backing.

“Accordingly, in the absence of a statutory mandate, the inclusion of settlement terms in judicial orders will depend on the nature of the case and the consent of the parties. It is not possible to issue an omnibus judicial order that the terms of settlement must be included in all cases, regardless of subject matter and opposition of parties. However, if the parties do not object and no legal impediment exists, it would be preferable to incorporate the settlement terms, ideally in a scanned copy with signatures, as it will aid the litigants, especially those living abroad, to produce and rely upon only one document.”

The suo moto petition was initiated considering the difficulties faced by litigants in abroad due to the non-inclusion of mediation settlement terms in judgments.

The Court referred to Section 89 of the CPC which states that if parties are ready to settle their disputes outside Court, then Courts shall formulate the terms of settlement and refer the parties to alternative dispute resolution methods.

The Court pointed out that, currently, terms of the agreement are not incorporated in the body of the judgment and orders. It noted that High Courts and District Courts pass judgments, decrees, and orders recording the compromise terms with a statement that the written agreement signed by the parties forms part of the judgment, decree, or order.

The Court observed that incorporating settlement terms in judicial orders has advantages. It stated that judicial order with settlement terms would reduce future litigation and help litigants, especially those living abroad. The Court however explained disadvantages for incorporating terms of settlement in judgements, orders  such as privacy issues in family cases where parties require confidentiality. It also pointed out that if settlement terms are incorporated into judicial orders, then further modifications could require issuance of fresh judicial orders.

The Court thus concluded that a uniform order cannot be issued prescribing a specific format for inclusion of settlement terms in judicial orders and that it would depend upon the nature of cases and consent of parties.

Court stated, “Therefore, each judge must decide, with the consent of the parties, whether to include the settlement terms in the judgment or order. If the parties oppose inclusion, it would be appropriate not to include the terms of settlement, particularly when there is no mandate governing the matter. Conversely, if the parties consent to inclusion and there is no legal impediment, the judges may incorporate the terms at their discretion.”

The Court added that when the parties consent to inclusion of terms of settlement in judicial orders, it would be preferable to include the settlement terms, preferably, in a scanned copy with signatures.

As such, the suo moto petition was closed.

Case Title: Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala

Case No: JPP NO. 1 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90