In common law or in civil law, in both the legal system since the beginning there was one type of legal practice was prevalent in the western countries that is the “Litigation”, where the parties are represented by their choice of advocates. The other method of dispute resolution like the “Arbitration” was not known to those people. There was only one method was available for dispute resolution that was the Litigation. The procedure and methods of litigation was very complicated only a well qualified lawyer can understand that what is the procedure and how to resolve the dispute. The dispute was not even settled or resolved in the litigation but it was basically adjudicated by the judge and a judgment has been passed in favor of one party and against the other, whereas the method and objective of Arbitration is very different. Instead of adjudicating the dispute in Arbitration the prime objective of the Arbitrator is to settle the dispute and not to adjudicate.
If both the parties agree to settle the dispute then both the parties do not have to go into the long and complicated legal intricacies of the litigation process. They can settle the dispute with the help of the Arbitrator. The process is simple and it is easy to understand for a common man. Arbitration is less expensive and it saves the time as well, whereas in Litigation a simple dispute at times takes years to settle. Even today people are finding Arbitration a better method that the Litigation. But Arbitration is applicable for non punitive disputes. Arbitration is perfect for compoundable offences. Arbitration has not been adopted as a well settled law to resolve the criminal disputes. But at times for criminal disputes as well Arbitration has been used to settle several other issues arisen between the parties like the issue of jurisdiction between two states. Thus, arbitration is a better method for dispute settlement then going for litigation process.