Bombay High Court stayed a 2017 defamation case until 2046, calling it an “ego fight between the parties at the fag end of their lives,” highlighting prolonged personal disputes clogging judicial timelines.
The Bombay High Court effectively put a defamation lawsuit on hold until 2046, describing the 2017 case as an “ego fight between the parties at the fag end of their lives.”
The court also criticised their continued insistence on pursuing the litigation, saying it prevents the court from handling more urgent matters.
Justice Jitendra Jain observed that,
“In cases like this, the parties’ ego fight near the end of their lives clogs the system, stopping the court from prioritising matters that require immediate attention.”
The remarks were made while the court was hearing a defamation suit filed in 2017 by elderly woman Tarinibahen Desai against another senior citizen, Kilkilraj Bhansali.
The court noted that on earlier occasions it had indicated the dispute could be resolved if the parties tendered unconditional apologies.
However, even though Desai is close to 90, she continued to pursue the defamation claim.
After being dissatisfied with this, the High Court stated that the case would be listed only after 2046, clarifying that it would not receive priority merely because the petitioner is a senior citizen or a super senior citizen.
Justice Jain said,
“I do not wish to state anything further except that this matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years. It is expressly made clear that this matter will not be taken up for hearing before 2046,”
The order came in a lawsuit filed in 2017 by two women arising from disagreements within the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society.
At the centre of the dispute are notices, letters, and resolutions connected to a 2015 annual general meeting, which included a resolution seeking to expel the women from the society.
They demanded Rs.20 crores as damages, alleging that the society’s communications were defamatory and caused them mental harassment and distress.
In 2018, the court was informed that a settlement might be possible, but the effort did not succeed. The court then framed issues and proceeded with the civil trial.
Earlier, On March 27, 2025, when the matter was listed, the court noted that neither party was present, nor were they represented through their lawyers. The court adjourned the case to July 10 and warned that if the women were not present or represented on the next date, it would consider dismissing the suit.
Against that background, Justice Jain’s April 28 order effectively halted further hearings in the defamation case for the next two decades.
Advocates Sanskruti Yagnik appeared for the women.
Advocates Pushkraj Deshpande and Anushtha Rathod represented the society members.
Case Title: Tarinibahen Desai and Anr v. Kilkilraj Bhansali and Ors
Read Attachment Here