In a scathing critique of litigious stubbornness, the Bombay High Court has ordered a defamation case filed by a 90-year-old woman to be stayed for two decades. Justice Jitendra Jain, presiding over the single-judge bench, characterized the dispute as a “battle of egos” that has unnecessarily congested the judicial system.
The Case Background
The legal battle began in 2017, filed by Tariniben (90) and Dhvani Desai (57) against Kilkilraj Bhansali and others.
-
The Incident: Alleged events occurring during a 2015 Annual General Meeting of the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society.
-
The Claim: The plaintiffs alleged mental harassment and distress, seeking ₹20 crore in compensation.
-
The Stalemate: The court had previously suggested a simple apology to resolve the matter, but the 90-year-old plaintiff remained “adamant” about pursuing the full defamation suit.
Judicial Observations
Justice Jain expressed frustration over the case’s impact on the court’s ability to handle more pressing matters. His order highlighted several key points:
“This is one of those cases where a battle of egos between the litigants—at the twilight of their lives—jams the system.”
-
No Priority for Age: The court clarified that the plaintiff would not receive preferential scheduling simply for being a “super senior citizen,” especially when the dispute is deemed avoidable.
-
Systemic Disruption: The judge noted that the case has “disrupted the judicial system,” preventing the court from prioritizing matters that “genuinely require priority.”
The 20-Year Deferment
Citing a history of delays—including missed deadlines for witness lists in 2019 and warnings of dismissal in 2023—the court took the unusual step of pushing the next hearing date into the distant future.
“I do not wish to say anything further, other than that this matter shall not be taken up for the next 20 years. List it for a date after 2046,” Justice Jain stated in his order.
The ruling serves as a stern warning against using the judiciary as a battlefield for personal vendettas, emphasizing that court time is a limited public resource.
