orders dated 16.10.2012, 3.12.2012, 21.2.2013, 17.5.2013, 4.9.2013, 18.11.2013 and 11.2.2014 reveal that repeated adjournments were sought. On 19.3.2014, request was made that dispute be referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which the Court did on the very same day. Thereafter, adjournment was sought and granted repeatedly on 12.5.2014, 28.7.2014, 24.9.2014 and again on 27.11.2014, 16.1.2015 and 11.3.2015. The order dated 16.1.2015 recorded that respondent 3A had to come to India from the United States and was likely to be in the city on 3.2.2015. The Court in the circumstances adjourned the matter to 11.3.2015. On that date again a request was made for adjournment. However, this Court noticed that the matter was lingering for quite a while and directed the Secretary, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to file a report as to the number of opportunities granted to the parties to arrive at a settlement. That report is not on record since the registry has not communicated the order. We have considered the entire facts and are of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the order of the DRAT which took into consideration the materials in concluding that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the final order dated 29.8.2008. Having regard to the fact that the disputes in this case were unnecessarily protracted and appeared to have prolonged further on account of mediation (which are essentially meant to arrive at just and mutually acceptable solution early), the Court is of the opinion that the order in this case should be marked to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to ensure that when matters are referred for mediation, proceedings in mediation are not used as a
