'Ego Fight' at Life's End: Bombay HC Freezes Defamation Suit Till 2046

In a stark reminder of judicial frustration with protracted personal disputes, the Bombay High Court has shoved a nine-year-old defamation suit into cold storage until 2046. Justice Jitendra Jain, presiding over the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, lambasted the case as an "ego fight" between elderly parties that's gumming up the courts, denying it priority even as a near-90-year-old plaintiff digs in her heels.

The suit, Suit No. 07 of 2017 , pits Tarinibahen Desai and another (plaintiffs) against Kilkilraj Bhansali and others (defendants)—former managing committee members of south Mumbai's Shyam Niwas Cooperative Housing Society.

Roots in Society Squabble: A Decade of Discord

The feud traces back around 2010, erupting over alleged unauthorized fund collection for building repairs and maintenance. Tensions boiled over in 2015 when society notices and extraordinary general meeting minutes branded Desai a "defaulter." She fired back with a ₹20 crore defamation claim, alleging mental agony from letters, resolutions, and statements that sought to expel her and her co-plaintiff.

Landmark moments included a 2018 order framing key issues—like whether 2015 AGM notices and defendant conduct were defamatory. Talks of settlement surfaced then but fizzled. Fast-forward to March 2025: another bench warned of dismissal for non-appearance. On April 20, 2026, the court nudged reconciliation via unconditional apology. By April 28, defendants—represented by ALMT Legal—were game, but Desai insisted on trial.

Plaintiffs Dig In, Defendants Extend Olive Branch

Desai, nearing 90 and represented by Sanskruti Yagnik, rejected the apology path, pushing for full adjudication of her claims. Defendant No. 5's counsel Nilesh Parte and the ALMT team for others underscored readiness to apologize unconditionally, "without prejudice," aiming to end the saga.

No formal arguments were aired on the fateful hearing; the focus shifted to the court's exasperation with non-resolution.

Court's Blunt Calculus: Prioritize Real Urgencies

Justice Jain wasted no words, invoking no precedents but leaning on inherent case management powers. He spotlighted how such tussles displace pressing matters, especially from litigants at "their fag end of their life."

Key Observations from the order:

"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 on the earlier occasion had expressed that this suit can be worked out by tendering unconditional apology. However, plaintiff no.1 who is close to 90 years old, still insist to pursue the suit for defamation."

"I do not wish to state anything further except that this matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years."

Iced for Two Decades: No Senior Perks

The hammer fell decisively:

"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."

This procedural sidestep won't dismiss the suit but effectively mothballs it, revoking elderly litigant fast-tracking. It signals courts' growing impatience with resolvable feuds amid bulging dockets, potentially emboldening similar de-prioritizations in low-stakes, high-emotion civil rows—especially in housing society imbroglio.

As media buzz grows over this "one-pager" stunner, it underscores a judicial plea: settle egos before they settle court time.