‘Learn to give up, not give into litigation’: Bombay High Court’s advice to siblings locked in defamation battle

The Bombay High Court recently underscored the need for siblings to “learn to give up rather than give into litigation” while hearing a plea over a defamation case between warring siblings.

Justice Jitendra Jain was dealing with an appeal filed against the trial court’s order in defamation case wherein the court had refused to take written statement of one of the siblings on the ground of delay.

While encouraging the siblings to resolve their disputes amicably, the court observed, “The relationship of a brother and sister is so noble and precious where one sibling will go any lengths to protect the other but in today’s day and age, this special bond is fraught with disputes, emotional tension or unresolved conflict.”

It further added that the root cause of broken sibling relationship can be attributed to greed, ego and desire of a materialistic life. “Siblings should learn to give up than to give into litigation,” the court said.

Emphasising the importance of brother-sister relationship, the court observed that festivals like “Raksha Bandhan” and “Bhaubeej” are a reflection of the eternal bond between brothers and sisters.

“During life’s highs and lows, joys and sorrows or when a storm blows, a sister does not fear for she knows that standing by her is her brother, who will protect her from every wrong. He is her shield, her strength, her weakness. Likewise, a brother knows his sister like his own mind, knowing that there will never be anyone as trusting and kind. Having a sister is like holding a mirror to one’s soul, seeing you for who you are, understanding your silence,” the court said.

The court lamented that siblings nowadays don’t stand together but stand against each other in court of law.

A defamation suit was filed by the brother against his sister for allegedly using “highly objectionable” language in their ongoing battle over parental properties.

The high court had earlier suggested both parties provide an undertaking to stop using abusive language while continuing their property litigation. However, the brother insisted on pursuing the defamation case.

In the defamation suit, the trial court had refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement, holding that the defendant was conscious and aware of the proceedings.

The court noted that the trial court’s order was based on a clerical error which listed the name of some other advocate as the defendant’s representative.

“The main basis of rejection of the prayer to take the written statement on record by not condoning the delay is based on an erroneous basis which I have narrated above. Therefore, this reasoning of the City Civil Court for rejecting the application to take the written statement on record after the prescribed period cannot be sustained,” the court held.

The court observed that parties should get adequate opportunity to defend before any final order is passed in the defamation case as it would have serious consequences on the reputation of both the parties.

Before parting with the order the court suggested the parties consider resolving their disputes amicably.

“Considering the age of the parties, it would be in their best interest that they resolve their disputes amicably thereby restoring peace and harmony in their relationship. After all the bond between a brother and sister is sometimes tightly woven, sometimes loosely held but never broken,” the court said.