Bombay High Court
PRABHAKAR SAVITRA MORE AND ANRversusAPPASAHEB BABANRAO DHYABAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Under Rule 3(ii)(b) of the Bombay High Court Process Fee Rules, 2006, no additional process fee is required for re‑issuance of summons on the same defendants, rendering the trial court’s dismissal for non‑payment of fee erroneous.
Summary
The petitioners sought to recall the dismissal of their suit against defendants 3 and 4, arguing that no fresh process fee was required for re‑issuing summons at new addresses. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioners failed to pay the process fee again. The High Court examined Rule 3(ii)(b) of the Bombay High Court Process Fee Rules, 2006, which expressly states that no additional fee is payable for serving process again on the same set of defendants until the proceeding is disposed. Finding the trial court’s reliance on non‑payment of fee contrary to the rule, the Court set aside the dismissal and allowed the petitioners’ application. However, the Court noted the petitioners’ negligence in prosecuting the suit and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 30,000 on them payable to the respondents. The writ petition was therefore allowed and disposed of with directions for cost payment and expedited trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a fresh process fee is required for re‑issuance of summons against the same defendants under the Bombay High Court Process Fee Rules, 2006.
- Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for alleged non‑payment of process fee is legally valid.
Subjects
- process fee
- summons re‑issuance
- Bombay High Court Process Fee Rules 2006
- civil procedure
- exemplary costs
- dismissal of suit
- negligence
Judgment
Renuka 11-WP-12411-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12411 OF 2019
Prabhakar Savitra More and Anr ...Petitioners
V/s.
Appasaheb Babanrao Dhyabar and Ors ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar with Mr. Omkar S. Shinde, Mr. Prathamesh S.
Hande and Ms. Jui Gharat for Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev A. Sawant with Mr. Samir Suryawanshi and Ms. Bhakti Wast
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 29 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 5 September 2019
passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Khed-
Rajgurunagar rejecting Application filed by the Petitioners at Exh-112.
By that Application, Petitioners had prayed for recall of order of
dismissal of the suit qua Defendant No. 3 and 4 and for restoration of the
same. It appears that Petitioners/Plaintiffs had applied for issuance of
fresh summons against Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on new addresses. The
Application was also allowed. However, by citing the reason of failure to
pay the process fees for issuance of summons again, the suit was directed
to be dismissed against Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in February 2014. Mr.
Page No.1 of 3
29 August 2026
Renuka 11-WP-12411-2019.docx
Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invites
the attention of this Court to the Bombay High Court Process Fee Rules
2006 (Rules of 2006). Rule 3 (ii) (b) of the said rules provides thus:
(b) Such process fee shall be charged and paid at the time of institution of the
proceeding. No process fee shall be charged for serving the process again on
the same set of defendants/respondents/non-applicants/accused or their legal
representatives till the proceedings is disposed of by the Court in which it is
instituted :
2) Thus, it is not necessary to pay process fee once again if
summons are sought to be served by re-issuance sy a substituted
address. It appears that the Petitioners had raised a specific contention
about non-requirement to pay process fee once again in Application at
Exh-115. However, the said contention is apparently not decided by the
Trial Court. In my view therefore, dismissal of the suit against Defendant
Nos. 3 and 4 for failure to pay process fees again appears to be contrary
to the provisions of the Rules of 2006.
3) At the same time, Petitioners are extremely negligent in the
facts of the present case. After recording dismissal of the Suit in
February 2014 qua Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, issues were framed on 6
February 2014. Plaintiff took the chance of prosecuting the Suit only
against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and filef evidence. After recording
Plaintiffs' evidence, Plaintiffs filed evidence closure pursis on 22
February 2018. Thereafter Defendants led evidence and filed evidence
closure pursis on 6 August 2018. The suit was fixed for final arguments
and at that stage, Plaintiffs took out Application at Exh-112. Considering
the above conduct of the Petitioners, they are liable to be saddled with
Page No.2 of 3
29 August 2026
Renuka 11-WP-12411-2019.docx
exemplary costs while allowing the Petition. In view of the above
discussion, order dated 5 September 2019 is set aside. Plaintiffs'
Application at Exh-112 is allowed in terms of prayers made therein.
4) Petitioners shall pay to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cost of Rs.
30,000/-. The cost shall be deposited in the Trial Court within the period
of four weeks with liberty to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw the
same.
5) With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed of. Cost as directed above.
6) Needless to observe that the Trial Court shall expedite
decision of the suit without entertaining any unnecessary application of
adjournment made on behalf of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 29 August 2026
Date: 01/09/2026 10:14:11
Checking your session…