Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanskruti Yagnik
For the Respondents: Pushkraj Deshpande, Anushtha Rathod, Nilesh Parte

The court may exercise its discretion to defer the hearing of a matter for an extended period if it determines the litigation is a result of an 'ego fight' that unnecessarily clogs the judicial system.

Headnote:The matter involves a suit for defamation where the court observed that the litigation is driven by an 'ego fight' between parties in the twilight of their lives, thereby clogging the judicial system. Despite the court's suggestion that the matter could be resolved through an unconditional apology, the first plaintiff insisted on pursuing the litigation. The court framed the issue around the priority of the case relative to other urgent matters and the conduct of the parties. The ratio decidendi is based on the court's determination that the suit lacks priority and serves as a burden on the system due to the parties' refusal to settle. List this matter after 2046.

Table of Content
1. court's observation on frivolous litigation and refusal to settle via apology. (Para 1 , 2)
2. deferment of hearing to 2046 due to lack of priority. (Para 3)

##PAGE1##

HMK 14. S-07-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO. 07 OF 2017

Tarinibahen Desai & Anr. ….Plaintiffs

Versus

Kilkilraj Bhansali & Ors. .…Defendants

__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Sanskruti Yagnik for the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Pushkraj Deshpande a/w. Ms. Anushtha Rathod i/by ALMT Legal for

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 & 7.

Mr. Nilesh Parte for Defendant No. 5.

__________________________________________________________________

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.

DATED : 28th APRIL 2026

P. C. :

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali

Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 1 of 1

Date: 28/04/2026 17:29:58