Bombay High Court

MOHAMMED AKBAR VOHRA AND ORSversusMAK AUTO SALES THR. ITS ABBAS RAJUBHAI MALA

Decided: 10 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

A court fee paid under an incorrect head but actually deposited as fee satisfies the requirement, and the objection is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, Sainath Sanjay Bodkhe, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Civil Judge dated 22 May 2026 which refused to direct the plaintiff, Mak Auto Sales, to pay court fees under the correct designated head and instead allowed the plaint to proceed. The petitioners argued that the court fee had been paid under an incorrect head and should therefore be rejected or corrected. The Civil Judge observed that although the fee was credited under the wrong head, the amount had been defaced and deposited as court fee, thereby satisfying the substantive requirement. Relying on the principle that substance prevails over form, the judge held that there was no substantive ground to object to the fee payment. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a direction to the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s reasoning and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a court fee paid under an incorrect head, but deposited as fee, satisfies the requirement of payment of court fees under the appropriate head.
Whether the plaintiff should be directed to repaid the fee correctly or the plaint should be rejected on this ground.

Subjects

court fee
procedural law
civil procedure
writ petition
substance over form
court fee head

Judgment

                                                                                6 WP-7769-26.DOC

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7769 OF 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
                      Mohammed Akbar Vohra & ors.                            ..Petitioners
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.07.13
14:48:07 +0530
                              Versus

                      Mak Auto Sales                                        …Respondent

                      Mr. A S Pal i/b Idris M Vohra, for the Petitioners.

                                                 CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE     :    10th July 2026


                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22 nd

                      May, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby                  the

                      learned Civil Judge did not accede to the prayer of the

                      petitioner to direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite Court fees

                      under the designated and appropriate head, failing which reject

                      the plaint.

                      3.      The learned Civil Judge has recorded that, though the

                      Court fee was paid under the wrong head, the same has been

                      defaced and the amount has been deposited as the Court fee in

                      the suit.



                      SAINATH                            1/2
                                                   6 WP-7769-26.DOC

4.   It seems that, the Court fee amount was credited under an

incorrect head. However, the learned Civil Judge was justi>ed in

looking at the substance of the matter rather than the form.

Since the amount credited under an incorrect head has been

deposited as Court fee, there is no substance in the objection of

the Petitioners-Defendants.

5.   Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                       [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH                          2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…