'Battle of ego': Bombay High Court first defers case till 2046, now sets July 15 hearing; Know what's the case

In a defamation case, the Bombay High Court adjourned the hearing of a case till 2046. However, it later modified its order and fixed July 15 as the next date of hearing. 

The Bombay High Court has withdrawn its order in which a defamation case had been adjourned till 2046. In its order dated April 28, the court had expressed displeasure, calling the case a battle of ego for the complainant, and had deferred it for 20 years. The court’s displeasure was due to the fact that despite an offer of apology from the other side, the 90-year-old complainant was not willing to end the long-pending defamation case.

Next hearing on July 15

On April 29, the complainant’s lawyer re-presented the matter before the court and requested a modification of the order. The court then changed its order and fixed July 15 as the next date of hearing.

What was the case before the court?

A nearly 90-year-old woman and her daughter had filed a ?20 crore defamation case against some members of the management of a housing society in South Mumbai. The matter had been ongoing for about a decade. On April 20, the High Court had suggested that the case could be closed if the other side offered an unconditional apology.

90-year-old woman rejected apology offer

At the hearing on April 28, members of the management committee were ready to apologize, but the complainant refused to end the case and rejected the offer of apology.

What did the judge say in the order?

On April 28, Justice Jitendra Jain expressed displeasure, stating that this was one of those cases where, at the final stage of the parties’ lives, their mutual ego was obstructing the judicial process. As a result, the court was unable to hear cases that were actually more important. The judge had said that the High Court had earlier also stated that the dispute could be resolved with an unconditional apology, but the nearly 90-year-old complainant was adamant about continuing the case.

Court’s strict stance in the earlier order

In his April 28 order, the judge also wrote that he did not wish to say anything further, except that the matter should not be heard for the next 20 years and should be listed in 2046. The court also clarified that merely because the parties are senior or very senior citizens, no priority would be given to the matter.