LAHORE, Dec 24: A bill has been submitted to the National Assembly which stipulates that no civil and commercial litigation shall be initiated against the federal and provincial governments, autonomous corporations and their officers without a prior one-month notice.

This legal provision is part of a judicial regime of alternate dispute resolution (ADR), and a whole chapter of this dispensation is being added to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 to make room for the creation of a judicial condition where mediation, arbitration and conciliation will assume paramount importance, and civil courts will be reduced to mere forums announcing the verdicts of the bodies established for the ADR in civil and commercial disputes.

An important feature of the ADR regime is that the Law of Evidence (Qanoon-i-Shahadat), 1984, shall not apply to proceedings initiated by a government authority or a civil court in securing the resolution of the dispute by way of conciliation or mediation. Proceedings in the civil court shall also remain suspended till an outcome of the ADR is made available to the court.

The amendments seek to give a period of four months to an aggrieved party to exhaust all possible ADR opportunities before he or she moves the civil court for the redressal of the grievance. The civil courts, too, will be under legal obligation to first refer the dispute for arbitration, mediation and conciliation, and in case one of the parties to the dispute does not feel satisfied with the ADR process, the court shall take up the case for a judicial examination.

The National Assembly standing committee on law and justice is considering the bill, which is said to be part of a process of reforms being carried out to bring the laws in conformity with the present day needs. The standing committee is learnt to have formulated some of its proposals to improve the enactment before it is placed before the national legislature for a debate.

The bill seeks to amend section 80 of the CPC in a manner as to require the aggrieved person to serve a notice on the federal and provincial governments through the secretaries of the line departments and chairpersons of autonomous corporations who shall examine the validity of the grievance and inform the person about the result of the scrutiny of the claim within a period of one month.

Sub-sections 3 of section 80 of the CPC suggests a change that if the dispute remains unresolved and the plaintiff feels dissatisfied with the finding of the authority concerned, he or she would enter into negotiation with the authority or opt for the ADR methods—arbitration, mediation or conciliation—for the resolution of the dispute. This process shall be completed within three months of the serving of the notice.

Section 80(5) provides that in case the dispute is resolved, the outcome will be recorded in the form of a statement by the plaint. In case the dispute still remains unresolved, the plaintiff will have the option to move a civil court of competent jurisdiction in a suit for a judicial examination of the plaint.

If the plaint is filed for judicial examination, the civil court will have the power to go for an alternate dispute resolution at a later stage of the hearing.

However, section 89-A of the CPC provides that the ADR method should be opted at initial stage of the case. This section has been replaced by a new provision, 89-A(1), to make room for mediation or conciliation as options for the ADR. Section 89-A(2) provides that if any of the parties to the dispute resort to the ADR, the court shall serve notice on the other party and if both agree on the ADR, the court shall refer the dispute for mediation or conciliation.

According to the proposed section 89-A(3), the civil court shall refer to a retired judge of a superior or subordinate court the dispute for mediation or conciliation and the committee for the purpose shall also have a technocrat having experience in the matter. If a technocrat is not available, the court may ask a lawyer to be on the committee for the purpose.

Section 89-A(5) proposes that the mediation or conciliation process shall not take more than six months to resolve the dispute. In case the period is insufficient, the court may extend the timeframe for another 30 days and during the entire period, the court shall not consider the dispute for judicial examination.

If the ADR method succeeds in resolving the dispute, the mediator or conciliator shall record such a settlement and obtain signatures of the parties and submit his report to the court for the announcement of the decision. The court shall then pronounce a decree, accordingly.

Section 89-A(10) of the bill proposes that the Law of Evidence, 1984, shall not apply to the proceedings before the mediator or the conciliator. The law also provides that proceedings before the mediator or the conciliator shall not be admissible before any court and they shall not be required to appear in a court as a witness. Section 89-A(11) proposes that no appeal or revision shall be allowed from a decree or order issued with the consent of the parties to the dispute. The law also suggests that the high court or the federal government may make rules to give effect to the provisions of the alternate dispute resolution regime.

TRIAL OF SUITS: Section 24-B of the proposed amendment to the CPC provides that the trial in other ordinary suits shall be completed in ten months. The suit will be heard in two stages. In the first stage, the administrative civil judge shall complete the service of notices etc. In the second stage, the trial judge shall take another six months to complete evidence, pronounce judgment and issue decree. The law proposes that evidence by way of affidavit shall be admissible.