The Bombay High Court has deferred hearing a nine-year-old defamation suit until 2046, observing that the dispute is essentially an “ego fight” between elderly litigants and does not warrant judicial priority.
The bench of Justice Jitendra Jain, in an order dated April 28, stated that the Court’s limited time must be devoted to more pressing matters. He remarked that such personal disputes, particularly at an advanced stage of life, tend to burden the judicial system and delay cases of greater urgency.
“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 judge made it clear that the matter would not be taken up for hearing before 2046 under any circumstances, adding that the case should not be given preference merely because the petitioners are senior or super senior citizens.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Tarinibahen Desai and Anr v. Kilkilraj Bhansali and Ors, was filed in 2017 by two women, including Tarinibahen Desai, who is now nearly 90 years old. The dispute arises from internal disagreements within the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society.
At the heart of the case are notices, letters, and resolutions connected to the society’s 2015 annual general meeting, during which a resolution was passed to expel the plaintiffs. The women alleged that these communications were defamatory and sought ₹20 crore in damages for mental harassment and distress.
Settlement Attempts Failed
In 2018, the Court was informed that the parties might reach a settlement, but negotiations ultimately fell through. The Court then framed issues and initiated civil trial proceedings.
Justice Jain noted that on an earlier occasion, the Court had suggested resolving the matter through an unconditional apology. However, the plaintiff chose to continue pursuing the defamation claim.
Proceedings and Court Observations
On March 27, 2025, when the matter was listed, neither the parties nor their legal representatives were present in court. The hearing was adjourned to July 10, with a warning that the suit could be dismissed if the plaintiffs failed to appear.
Against this backdrop, the latest order effectively puts the case in cold storage for the next two decades.
“I do not wish to state anything further except that this matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years,” Justice Jain stated.
Case Details
Case Title: Tarinibahen Desai and Anr v. Kilkilraj Bhansali and Ors.
Case No.: SUIT NO. 07 OF 2017
Date: 28/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Sanskruti Yagnik
Counsel For Respondent: Pushkraj Deshpande
Read More: Jurishour | Tax Law Daily Bulletin : April 28, 2026
