The populace's use of ADR is hindered by a lack of knowledge of its character, existence and difficulties accessing it, the desire of disputants for engaging in adversarial conduct, and the familiarity and preference of lawyers for court procedures. The term "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR) refers to a number of strategies for resolving conflicts outside of court. The legislative directive for the court to refer civil disputes to the different ADR mechanisms is listed in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was introduced by the Act of 1999 which took effect on January 7, 2002. The majority of ADR criticism has been directed at mediation, with concerns that it favours the powerful party, undercuts legal rights, and often results in second-class justice for people who cannot afford litigation. The creation of resolutions that are better suited to the parties' underlying interests and needs, improved ex post compliance with the resolution's terms, and a decrease in transaction costs of dispute resolution are among the purported advantages of ADR processes. These processes may also be less expensive and faster than traditional judicial proceedings.
The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems assists in providing parties with economical, transparent, quick, and accessible justice. Since the overarching goal of all disputes is resolution, why not choose a course of action that may be amicably resolved by compromise?
These techniques will foster a culture of compromise among the parties, which is essential in today's society. This paper attempts to evaluate the efficacy of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") and to explore Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and why it is chosen to resolve disputes. It also discusses the advantages of ADR to both parties over the litigation process.