Back
Bombay HC U-Turns: Recalls 'Ego Fight' Order, Brings Defamation Case Back to 2026
In a dramatic about-face, the on , recalled its controversial order from the previous day that had adjourned a nine-year-old defamation suit to the distant year . Justice Jitendra Jain, presiding over Tarinibahen Desai & Anr. v. Kilkilraj Bhansali & Ors. (Suit No. 7 of ), directed the matter be listed for further consideration on , correcting specific portions of the directive amid mention by the plaintiffs' counsel.
Roots in a South Mumbai Society Feud
The dispute traces back to within the in south Mumbai. Plaintiffs Tarinibahen Desai, nearing 90 years old, and her daughter filed the suit in against society managing committee members, including Kilkilraj Bhansali and others. They alleged defamation through notices, letters, and resolutions from an annual general meeting and a September meeting, which expelled them and labeled Desai a "defaulter" over objections to repair fund collections. Seeking Rs 20 crore in damages for mental harassment, the women claimed the communications tarnished their reputation.
The case lingered for years. In , settlement talks surfaced but collapsed, leading to issue framing for trial. On , another bench noted absences and warned of dismissal if plaintiffs failed to appear by .
Apology on Table, But Pride Prevails
Court records and reports reveal defendants, represented by , were willing to tender an unconditional apology during the hearing. However, Desai insisted on pursuing the suit. Justice Jain, frustrated, observed in the now-amended 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.”
He further noted: “List this matter after . 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 .” The judge remarked the dispute could have ended earlier with an apology but refused priority despite ages.
Swift Recall: Deleting the Sting
Plaintiffs' advocate mentioned the matter the next day, leading to the April 29 order. Justice Jain ruled: “Delete lines 4 and 5 of paragraph 2 of the order dated and replace paragraph 3 with ‘List this matter on for further consideration.’”
Lines deleted included: “I do not wish to state anything further except that this matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years.” The court mandated uploading the corrected order online, to be read alongside the original.
No precedents were cited in either order, underscoring this as a discretionary case management move amid India's overburdened courts.
Key Observations from the Bench
- “Ego fight between parties at their fag end of their lives clogs the system” – Highlighting judicial exasperation with prolonged petty disputes.
- “This matter should not be given priority... petitioners are senior citizens or super senior citizens” – Rejecting age-based expediency (from order, now contextual).
- “Delete lines 4 and 5 of paragraph 2... List this matter on ” – Precise correction mechanism invoked.
Clearing the Docket: Broader Ramifications?
While the recall restores normal scheduling, the episode spotlights tensions in managing legacy civil suits, especially intra-society spats. It signals courts' pushback against backlog-clogging matters but also flexibility in revisiting strong-worded directives. Future hearings on July 15 could explore settlement anew, potentially resolving this decade-old rift without trial.
The defendants remain represented by and team from , with for defendant No. 5.
