MUMBAI: A day after posting a decade-old Rs 20 crore defamation suit to the year 2046, the Bombay High Court recalled that part of its order and rescheduled the matter to July 15, 2026. The suit was filed by a 90-year-old South Mumbai senior citizen who insisted on pursuing the case and declined to accept an apology from the defendants.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute allegedly arose in a housing society located in Breach Candy about a decade ago. On Wednesday, Justice Jitendra Jain, sitting singly, recalled its April 28 direction to hear the libel suit only after 2046 and posted it for the next hearing on July 15. Advocate Swaraj Jadhav, representing the 90-year-old woman, mentioned the matter for modification.
Justice Jain also heard advocate Pushkaraj Deshpande for erstwhile housing society members of Shyam Niwas, located in Breach Candy, and said, "Delete lines 4 and 5 of paragraph 2 of order dated 28 April 2026 and replace para 3 with 'List this matter on 15 July 2026 for further consideration.'"
Details of the Original Order
The deleted lines from Tuesday’s order were: "I do not wish to state anything further except this matter should not be taken up for next 20 years." The replaced para 3 had said: "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." These lines and this para now stand deleted.
Court's Earlier Attempt at Settlement
The High Court had on April 20 requested both sides to try and settle, suggesting that the matter could be resolved with the defendants offering an unconditional apology. When the matter came up for hearing as scheduled on Tuesday, erstwhile housing society committee members, from whom the Rs 20 crore damages are being claimed, offered to unconditionally apologize without prejudice. However, the woman, almost 90, still insisted on pursuing the matter, the High Court noted on Tuesday.
Nature of the Dispute
The dispute was over the collection of funds towards repair and maintenance of the society. She had objected to the collection and failed to make payment of the amount demanded. Subsequently, in the minutes of one of the Extra Ordinary General Meetings (EGM), the woman was referred to as a "defaulter," which led to the filing of the present suit alleging defamation.
"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 matters which really require more priority," the High Court had also said in its Tuesday order.
