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.] Page No. 3 of 3 29 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 10:14:11