Bombay HC Adjourns 90-Year-Old Woman’s Defamation Suit to 2046, Calling It ‘Ego Battle’

Mumbai: In a strongly worded order that has sparked widespread discussion, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing of a nine-year-old defamation suit, filed by a nearly 90-year-old woman and her daughter, to after the year 2046, describing the dispute as a personal “ego fight” at the “fag end of their lives” that was unnecessarily burdening the judicial system.

Justice Jitendra Jain, while hearing the matter, observed that the case stemmed from a long-standing conflict in a housing society in Mumbai’s upscale Malabar Hill area. The plaintiff, Tarinibahen Desai (now close to 90), along with her daughter, had filed a Rs 20 crore defamation suit against members of the society’s managing committee, including Kilkilraj Bhansali and others. The roots of the litigation trace back to disagreements over repairs and maintenance work in the society.

The court noted that the dispute could have been resolved amicably if an unconditional apology had been tendered, but the elderly plaintiff insisted on pressing ahead with the full suit despite repeated opportunities for settlement. Justice Jain remarked, “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 require more priority.”

In a concise one-page order, the judge directed that the matter “should not be given priority on the ground that the petitioners are senior citizens or super senior citizens” and explicitly stated it should not be taken up for the next 20 years. “List this matter after 2046,” the order read. He added that he did not wish to state anything further on the issue.

The development highlights the growing concern over protracted personal litigations that occupy valuable court time, even as the judiciary grapples with massive backlogs involving more pressing matters such as criminal cases, constitutional issues, and urgent civil disputes affecting larger sections of society.

Legal observers pointed out that while senior citizens are often granted expedited hearings out of compassion, the court drew a firm line when it perceived the case as driven more by pride than by substantive legal necessity. The order serves as a rare but pointed message to litigants: not every grievance, especially those rooted in ego, deserves immediate judicial bandwidth.

Following the order on April 28, there were reports that the court later recalled or modified parts of the direction on April 29, adjourning the matter to July 15 instead. However, the strong observations on the “ego battle” and the initial deferral to 2046 have already ignited debate on social media and in legal circles about the limits of patience in an overburdened system.

This unusual adjournment has drawn both amusement and reflection, with many viewing it as a creative judicial nudge toward out-of-court settlements in petty, long-running feuds, especially when the parties involved are advanced in age.