Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In an appeal challenging the Trial Court’s order refusing to condone the delay and not admitting appellant-defendant’s written statement in a defamation suit between siblings, a Single-Judge bench of Jitendra Jain, J., set aside the impugned order and permitted her to file written statement in a lis between siblings wherein a dispute over their parents’ properties, ultimately escalated into a defamation battle between brother and sister.
The Trial Court refused to take the written statement of the original defendant on and declined to condone the delay on grounds that —
-
the defendant was aware of the proceedings as an advocate, Ms. Sapna Rachure, had appeared in the matter; and
-
service of the suit was effected upon the defendant as reflected in the bailiff’s report and affidavit of service.
Aggrieved by the refusal to take the written statement on record, the defendant-sister preferred the present Appeal from Order.
At an earlier stage, the Court had made an attempt to persuade the siblings to give undertakings “not to use abusive language against each other”, leaving them free to litigate regarding property disputes. However, the plaintiff-brother declined this suggestion and insisted on pursuing the defamation suit, leaving the Court with “no option but to proceed with the adjudication of the present appeal.”
The Court noted that “a very sorry state of affairs, where two siblings brother and sister… are litigating for properties of their parents,” and that the language used in the complaint was “highly objectionable and fails to reflect the religious orientation of the parties.”
The Court found that the entire foundation of the Trial Court’s reasoning was erroneous. A detailed examination of the record revealed that Ms. Sapna Rachure had filed a vakalatnama in a different, connected suit, and due to an error committed by the office of the City Civil Court, her name was wrongly reflected in the present proceedings as well.
The Court accepted the explanation tendered by Ms. Sapna Rachure, who personally appeared and clarified that she was “in no way connected with the present matter.” The Court held that the confusion arose solely due to a tag-down tab error on the court’s website, which was mechanically carried forward. Consequently, the Court held the Trial Court’s conclusion that the defendant was aware of the proceedings on this basis was unsustainable.
With respect to service, the Court noted that the signature purportedly acknowledging service did not tally with the admitted signature of the defendant on record. The Court observed that, prima facie, it could not be accepted that the proceedings were duly served upon the defendant.
The Court also noted that a perjury application concerning the alleged service was pending before the City Civil Court, and therefore refrained from making conclusive observations, leaft the matter to be taken “to its logical conclusion” by the Trial Court.
The Court emphasised that a defamation suit between siblings carries serious consequences on the reputation of both parties, and therefore, adequate opportunity to defend must be afforded before passing any final order.
Having found both grounds relied upon by the Trial Court to be incorrect, the Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the defendant to file her written statement within eight weeks and directed the Trial Court to take the same on record. The Court further rejected the plea for imposition of heavy costs and reiterated the settled principle that “for the errors of the office of the Court, the parties should not suffer.”
In a reflective and cautionary note, the Court observed that the proceedings between the siblings, i.e., filing of the defamation suit between siblings, were “nothing but an attempt to clog the system and a counterblast against each other.” The court asserted that “siblings should learn to give up than to give into litigation.”
The Court concluded by expressing hope that, considering the age of the parties, they would resolve their disputes amicably and restore “peace and harmony in their relationship,” reminding that the bond between a brother and sister is “sometimes tightly woven, sometimes loosely held but never broken.”
[Rangamma Soundappa Chetty v. Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty, Appeal From Order No. 360 of 2019, Decided on 19-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ramprakash Pandey a/w. Mr. Udaybhan Tiwari, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Arvind Taral, Counsel for the Respondent