Bombay High Court Defers 9-Year-Old Defamation Suit Till 2046, Calls It an “Ego Fight” Between Senior Citizens

In a striking observation on judicial priorities, the Bombay High Court has adjourned a nine-year-old defamation suit to be heard only in the year 2046, calling it an “ego fight” between two senior citizens that was unnecessarily clogging the justice delivery system.

Justice Jitendra Jain, in an order dated April 28, remarked that the Court’s valuable time should be reserved for matters requiring urgent attention rather than personal disputes driven by ego.

“This is one of the matters where the ego fight between the parties at their fag end of their life clogs the system, which prevents the Court from taking up the matters which really requires more priority,” the Court observed.

The matter pertains to Tarinibahen Desai and Another v. Kilkilraj Bhansali and Others, a civil defamation suit filed in 2017 by two women against members of the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society.

The dispute originated from internal disagreements within the housing society, particularly concerning notices, letters, and resolutions passed during the 2015 annual general meeting. One of the key resolutions involved the expulsion of the women from the society.

Claiming that these communications were defamatory and caused them severe mental harassment and emotional distress, the plaintiffs sought damages amounting to ₹20 crore.

Court Refused Priority Despite Senior Citizen Status

Justice Jain made it clear that the case should not receive priority merely because the petitioners were senior citizens or even super senior citizens.

“List this matter after 2046. At any cost, this matter should not be given priority on the ground that the petitioners are senior citizens or super senior citizens. It is expressly made clear that this matter will not be taken up for hearing before 2046,” the Court ordered.

The judge also recalled that on an earlier occasion, the Court had suggested that the matter could be resolved if an unconditional apology was tendered. However, plaintiff Tarinibahen Desai, who is nearly 90 years old, insisted on continuing the defamation proceedings.

“I do not wish to state anything further except that this matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years,” Justice Jain added.

Background of the Litigation

The suit had earlier shown signs of settlement in 2018 when the Court was informed that the parties were exploring a compromise. However, the settlement did not materialize, and the Court proceeded to frame issues for civil trial.

Later, on March 27, 2025, when the matter was listed for hearing, neither the parties nor their lawyers were present before the Court.

The Court then adjourned the matter to July 10 and warned that if no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit could be dismissed.

The latest April 28 order has now effectively frozen the proceedings for the next two decades, sending a strong message about misuse of judicial time in personal disputes lacking broader public urgency.

Appearances

Advocate Sanskruti Yagnik appeared for the plaintiffs.

Advocates Pushkraj Deshpande and Anushtha Rathod, briefed by ALMT Legal, appeared for the society members.

The case has triggered wider conversations around judicial backlog, misuse of civil defamation suits, and the Court’s increasing emphasis on prioritizing matters of genuine urgency over prolonged personal disputes.


📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates