Court Fee LawFrequently Asked Questions on Court Fee Law
1. A fiscal statute, like the Court-fees Act, must be strictly construed. Liability or additional liability cannot be imposed on the subject except by clear and unambiguous terms. In other words, unless the language of the Act is clear and unambiguous so as to entitle the Courts to levy higher duty on a relief, it must be construed very strictly, and not in a manner that would result in demanding more court-fee for a less valuable claim.
2. In case of doubt, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the subject.
3. If two constructions of a final enactment are equally possible and reasonable, the construction more favourable to the subject be enforced.In New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commr. Sales Tax Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1207, it was observed - It is also a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. 3-A. The provisions of the Court-fees Act must be interpreted strictly and any demand of court-fee which must necessarily be deemed to be in furtherance of the provisions of the Act must be strictly scrutinised. In Collector of Customs, Baroda v. Digvijay Singh Ji Spinning & Weaving Mills, AIR 1961 SC 1549, it was observed - In construing a statute, there are two well-established rules -
(i) Where the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves in such case best declare the intention of the legislature.
(ii) Where alternative constructions are equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system, which the statute purports to be regulating, and that alternative is to be rejected, which will introduce uncertainty, friction, or confusion into the working of the system.
(a) the Legislature has expressly declared them to be retrospective; or
(b) they affect only the procedure of the Courts.The Court-fees Act is not retrospective in its operation. The law of court-fees is a procedural law. Hence the court-fee payable on a plaint is to be determined with reference to the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit, although the law in force at the time of the accrual of the cause of action might have been different. But even procedural law cannot have a retrospective operation so as to affect things already done in a pending proceeding. Thus a change in law as to court-fee subsequent to the institution of the suit and before its disposal cannot affect the court-fee payable on the plaint in the suit (Chunni Lal v. Krishna Das Ram Das, A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 71; Tara Prasanna v. Trisinghu Moorari, A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 731). Where the court-fee for and an appeal or application for review is made to depend on the value of the plaint in the case and there is a change in the law of court-fee subsequent to the institution of the suit and before the appeal or application for review is filed, the value of the plaint for the purpose of determining the court-fee on such appeal or application must be fixed with reference to the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit and not at the time of the filing of the appeal or application. (Chhakauri Singh v. Sri Krishna Pande, A.I.R. 1941 All. 134 : 193 I.C. 747; Nand Ram v. Jogendra Chandra, A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 881).
The fees payable for the time being to the clerks and officers (other than the sheriffs and attorneys) of the High Courts established by Letters Patent by virtue of the power conferred by section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 or section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 or section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935;
or chargeable in each of such courts under No. 11 of the first, and Nos. 7, 12, 14, 20 and 21 of the second Schedule to this Act annexed;
and the fees for the time being chargeable in the Courts of Small Causes at the Presidency towns and their several offices, shall be collected in manner hereinafter appearing." Thus section 3 merely prescribes the mode of collection of fees and is not a charging section. It deals with the court-fees payable in the Chartered High Courts and Presidency Small Cause Courts. Section 4 also deals with the court-fees to be paid in chartered High Courts.The section is divided mainly into two parts. The first part consists of two paragraphs which concern the fees payable or chargeable in High Courts, other than those of Kerala, Mysore and Rajasthan, and the second part concerns the Courts of Small Causes at the Presidency-towns and their offices, and the fees for the time being chargeable in those courts and the offices. But both the parts have got one common object, namely, the manner in which collection of the fees payable or chargeable has to be made. According to Section 3, the procedure laid down in Sections 25 to 28 infra for the collection and mode of levying the fees applies to the original jurisdiction as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court; but it is not applicable to Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a single judge of the High Court and no court-fee is leviable thereon except Rs. 2/- prescribed for an application of the High Court. Section 3 does not apply to appeals under Agency Rules referred by the Government to the High Court for disposal.
1. Extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction;
2. Extraordinary original civil jurisdiction;
3. Appellate jurisdiction against judgment of two or more Judges of High Court or Division Bench;
4. Appellate jurisdiction over subordinate Courts;
5. Revisional jurisdiction and as Court of Reference, when the proper court-fees prescribed by those Schedules for such documents have been paid.
1) Valuation according to its actual or market value, in other words, the market value of the subject-matter determines the amount of court- fee payable.
2) By ascribing to the subject-matter an artificial value based simply on certain fixed rules of calculation.
3) Notional valuation, or valuation at the option of the plaintiff, that is to say, by requiring the plaintiff himself to value the relief he seeks.Section 7 has to be read along with the Schedules. Schedules I and II endeavour to give a comprehensive classification of the various kinds of suits with reference to these heads of classification. These Schedules also provides that the proper fees payable on some documents shall vary according to the courts in which they are filed and that in regard to others there shall be no such variance. Again, in Schedule II, it is mentioned that plaints and appeals in the suits therein specified shall bear the fixed fees prescribed, while in Schedule I are specified various suits in which the plaints and appeals shall bear an ad valorem fee. Section 7 is a handle for the application of the Schedules of the Act.
(a) the land forms an entire estate, or definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and
(b) such revenue is permanently settled.The value of land shall be deemed to be five times the revenue payable where -
(a) The land forms an entire estate, or definitive share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and
(b) such revenue is settled, but not permanently.The value of land shall be deemed to be fifteen times the net profits where -
(a) the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted for such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue; and
(b) the net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.The value of the land shall be deemed to be the market value of the land where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate, and is not separately assessed as above mentioned. The word "Estate" means any land subject to the payment of revenue for which proprietor of farmer shall have executed a separate engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue. The value of the house or garden shall be deemed to be the market value of the house or garden. In the case of Rani Devi v. Trilok Singh, A.I.R. 1980 All. 111, the plaintiff-respondent claimed himself to be an allottee of the house and not the owner. He also alleged that the defendant-appellant was a trespasser. It was held by Mahavir Singh, J., of the Allahabad High Court that -
(a) For suits -
(i) by a tenant against a trespasser, or
(ii) between the rival tenants, the valuation is to be made in accordance with Section 7(V-B) of the Court-fees Act as amended in U.P.
(b) Only in suits is which proprietary possession is claimed, valuation is to be made on market value as given in Section 7 (V-A) of the Act as amended in U.P.
(i) suit against a mortgagee for recovery of the property mortgaged,
(ii) suit by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, and
(iii) suit, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute.In all these three cases the valuation of the suits has to be made according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage deed. The application of the clause is not confined to any particular kind of mortgage. A suit for redemption of a simple mortgage is within the purview of this clause. The first part of the clause applies not only to suits for redemption but to all suits against the mortgagee for the recovery of mortgaged property. Even a suit for redemption, where one of the questions at issue is whether the mortgage money is paid off, and if not what is the amount remaining due, is within the ambit of the clause. Similarly, where the main relief claimed in the suit is one for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, but the plaintiff prays that the mortgagee should account for surplus deficiencies caused by him during the course of his management of the mortgaged property, the suit is substantially one for redemption and the court-fee is leviable under this clause, and no separate fee is required in respect of the prayer for account regarding surplus deficiencies. But where a distinct relief in addition to that of redemption is claimed, separate court- fee in respect of it has to be paid. A suit for redemption of a mortgage and mesne profit is, however, not a suit including two or more `distinct subjects' and falls within this clause. The following are some instances where suits have been held not to fall under this clause :
(i) A suit to enforce a mortgage by a decree for sale.
(ii) A suit by the purchaser of the equity of redemption to get rid of a decree obtained by the collusion of the mortgagor and the mortgagee for a larger amount than what is due.
(iii) A suit for redemption of a pledge.
(iv) A suit where a mortgagee seeks to recover possession of the mortgaged land, or to recover money on the basis of a mortgage.
(a) of a contract of sale - according to the amount of consideration;
(b) of a contract of a mortgage - according to the amount agreed to be secured;
(c) of a contract of lease - according to the aggregate amount of the fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term;
(d) of an award - according to the amount or value of the property in dispute.So this clause contemplates four classes of cases which are as follows :-
(1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, the court-fee is regulated by the amount of consideration money. [Section 7(x)(a)].
(2) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of mortgage, the court-fee is regulated by the amount agreed to be secured. [Section 7(x)(b)].
(3) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of lease, the court-fee is regulated by the aggregate amount of fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term. [Section 7(x)(c)].
(4) In a suit for specific performance of an award, the court-fee is regulate by the amount or value of the property in dispute. [Section 7(x)(d)].The valuation in case of contracts of sale and mortgage will be according to the consideration of the deed of sale or mortgage, as the case may be, in case of lease, such value will be the aggregate of the premium and first year's rent, and in the case of an award, the valuation will be the value or amount of the property in dispute. The clause does not apply to a suit to specifically enforce a contract of guarantee, nor to a suit for a certain share of land on the allegation that the parties thereto had agreed to buy and pay for the land in partnership at an auction and that it was so purchased in the name of the defendants, nor a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding a trust deed. Similarly, a suit for refund of the sale consideration paid to the vendor, on the allegation that the vendor had practiced fraud on the vendee by suppressing some important facts in connection with the sale, is not one for specific performance of contract, but for cancellation of the sale and, hence, this clause has no application thereto.
(a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease,
(b) to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy,
(c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease,
(cc) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the tenancy,
(d) to contest a notice of ejectment,
(e) to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by a landlord, and
(f) for abatement of rent,the amount of court-fee shall be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for year next before the date of presenting the plaint. [Section 7(xi) of the Court-fees Act]. The above clause governs the suits between landlords and the tenants. Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) relate to suits by landlords against the tenants while the rest of the sub-clauses deal with suits by tenants against the landlords. (a) Computation of Court-fees payable in suit for delivery by a tenant of a counterpart of a lease. - Section 7(xi)(a) of the CourtFees Act provides that the amount of fee payable in suit a for the delivery by a tenant of a counterpart of a lease shall be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. (b) Computation of court-fees payable in suit to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy - Section 7(xi)(b) of the Act lays down that the amount of court-fee payable in a suit to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy shall be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. Thus this clause applies to suits for enhancement of rent. A suit for commutation of grain rent into money rent of equal value does not fall within this clause (Chinna Thambiar v. Veerappa Naidu, AIR 1924 Mad. 623). This clause does not provide for a suit for assessment of rent which implies that no rent was paid previously by the defendant and such a suit is not governed by this clause. (Dhanakdhari Tiwari v. Mani Sonnr, AIR 1927 Pat. 123). A tenant having a right of occupancy is a tenant having a right to be in actual physical possession of land and does not include a person having a superior interest. A tenure-holder in Bengal is a person having a superior interest and therefore a suit against him for enhancement of rent is not governed by this clause. (c) Computation of fees payable in suit for delivery by landlord of a lease. - Section 7(xi)(c) of the Act states that the amount of fee payable in suit for the delivery by a landlord of a lease shall be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.
(i) If in the result of any such investigation the court finds that the net profits or market value have or has been wrongly estimated, the court, if the estimation has been excessive, may in its discretion refund the excess paid as such fee; but if the estimation has been insufficient, the court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the said market value or net profits been rightly estimated.
(ii) In such case the suit shall be stayed until the additional fee is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.
(iii) [Omitted].So section 10 is intended to supplement the section 9 of Act as both sections together provide a machinery for ascertaining the value of the land, house etc. the subject matter of suit, when court thinks that value has been wrongly estimated to the detriment of revenue. In Sakinabi v. Zeenathunnisa, AIR 1999 Kant. 268 it was observed :- The words `such investigation' in cl. (i) refer to any investigation held under Section 9, and are not confined in their application to an investigation by a commissioner. Hence, the section applies where the court itself holds the inquiry. A reading of the section per se reveals that when the dispute arises as to valuation or the sufficiency of the court-fees, it is the duty of the court to determine that question after hearing the parties. When the order impugned has been passed without following the mandatory provisions of law and without indicating what valuation should be and what court-fees should be paid, such an order is without application of mind and amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. It is pertinent to mention that provisions of sections 9 and 10 are analogous to provisions of Order 7 rule 2 of C.P.C. and contemplate stay of suit for a period to enable the plaintiff to pay to make up the deficiency in the court-fee.
"(i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit.
(ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a court of appeal, reference or revision, if such court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided, to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of section 10(ii) shall apply." The section is intended to protect and safeguard the interest of revenue as is manifest from the second clause of this section which shows how a court of appeal may review the decision of the lower court or when there is a loss of the public revenue. The scheme of the section is to see that the revenue is not defrauded, that the proper fee payable to Government as the price of the trial of the suit has been paid. (1925 M.W.N. 826).
Q. 25. In a plaint following relief were asked : (i) that it be declared that the appointment of Defendant No. 2 as Chairman of Board of Directors of Company is illegal, invalid and ultra vires, and that he has no right to act as chairman, managing director, etc.; and (ii) that a Receiver be appointed to take charge of the Company. The plaint bore a court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 only but, on the objection of the defendants, ad valorem fee was paid on Rs. 51,000/- which was the valuation of the suit. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff preferred an appeal giving up the second relief and paying a court-fee of Rs. 10/- only. The appellate court ordered the payment of ad valorem court-fee and on non- compliance, rejected the memorandum of appeal. Discuss the fate of further appeal.
(i) Where a memorandum of appeal or plaint has been rejected by the lower court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is ordered to be received by the appellate Court; and
(ii) Where a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned on O 41, rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellate court is required, in both the cases, to grant a certificate to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the revenue authorities the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.Then Section 14 of the Act provides :- Where an application for a review of judgment is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant's laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would have been payable had it been presented before such day. Scope of the Section - This section is intended to provide for the refund of court-fee, when an application for review is presented to the Court on or after the 90th day from the date of the decree. If an application for review is filed before the 90th day, the applicant need only pay half the court-fee according to Article 5 of the first Schedule. But Article 4 of the same Schedule or memorandum of appeal if it is filed on or after the 90th day. This section empowers the Court to refund the excessive half payable in the latter case, that is, on such an application, when it is presented after the 89th day. The grant of the certificate for refund is discretionary with the Court, and the discretion contemplated by this section is only to be exercised, when there are no laches on the part of the applicant. Thereafter Section 15 of Court-fee Act says :- Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted, and where, on the rehearing, the Court reserves or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake in law or fact, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the [application] as exceeds the fee payable on any other application to such Court under the second Schedule to this Act, No. 1, clause (b) or clause (d). But nothing in the former part of this section shall entitle the applicant to such a certificate where reversal or modification is due, wholly or in part, to fresh evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing. In Prohas Kumar v. Nithar Lal, AIR 1924 Cal. 1054 it was observed - In order to attract the operation of Section 15 of the Court-fees Act the conditions requisite are : (i) that there should be an application for review of judgment, (ii) that it should have been admitted, (iii) that on the re- hearing, the Court should have reversed or modified its former decision on the ground of mistake in law or fact, (iv) and that such reversal or modification was not due to fresh evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing. If the conditions mentioned above are present in a case refund should be ordered though the Court purported to act under Section 151 instead of Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Q. 30. (i) What relief has been given under the Court-fees Act, where a person applying for probate of a "will" or letter of administration estimates the property of deceased to be greater value than it afterwards proves to be ? (ii) What relief has been given under the Court-fees Act, where the debts due from deceased person have been paid out of his estate by an executor or administrator ? (iii) What is the provision as to relief in case of several grants?
(a) cancel the stamp on the probate or letters if such stamp has not been already cancelled;
(b) substitute another stamp for denoting the court-fee which should have been paid thereon; and
(c) make an allowance for the difference between them as in the case of spoiled stamps, or repay the same in moneys, at his discretion. (Section 19-A).(ii) Relief where debts due from a deceased person have been paid out of his estate .- Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of such Authority that an executor or administrator has paid debts due from the deceased to such an amount as, being deducted out of the amount or value of the estate, reduces the same to a sum which) if it had been the whole gross amount or value of the estate, would have occasioned a less court-fee to be paid on the probate or letters of administration grated in respect of such estate than has been actually paid thereon under this Act, such Authority may return the difference, provided the same be claimed within three years after the date of such probate or letters. But when, by reason of any legal proceeding, the debts due from the deceased have not been ascertained and paid or his effects have been recovered and made available, and in consequence thereof the executor or administrator is prevented from claiming the return of such difference within the said term of three years, the said Authority may allow such further time for making the claim as may appear to be reasonable under the circumstances. (Section 19-B). Thus by this section 19-B, the court-fee payable is not reduced but provision has been made for refund of the proportionate amount of court-fees if any debts are actually discharged from the state. (iii) Relief in case of several grants. - It is provided in section 19-C of the Court-fees Act that whenever a grant of probate or letters of administration has been or is made in respect of the whole of the property belonging to an estate and the full fee chargeable under this Act has been or is paid thereon, no fee shall be chargeable under the same Act when a like grant is made in respect of the whole or any part of the same property belonging to the same estate. Whenever such a grant has been or is made in respect of any property forming part of an estate, the amount of less than actually paid under this Act shall be deducted when a like grant is made in respect of property belonging to the same estate, identical with or including the property to which the former grant relates. There are many cases in which a fresh grant becomes necessary. For instance a probate may be revoked or an executor may die and a portion of an estate may remain unadministered. It is to provide for such case that section 19-C has been enacted. (Bhagwati Saran v. Secy. of State, 54 Ind. Cases 703). Section 19-C provides for cases when fresh grant of a probate of a will or letters of administration of the estate of the same person becomes necessary and the fees have already been paid in respect of the whole or part of the property comprised in the estate of the deceased person. (5 P.L.J. 36). The object of this section is that where the full fee chargeable under the Court- fees Act on a probate at the time it is granted has been paid no further fee is chargeable when a second or subsidiary grant is made in respect of the property comprised in that section. (Sevarnmoy Devi v. Secy. of State, 15 W.R. 489).
Provided that no such motion shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the exhibition of the inventory required by Section 277 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, or as the case may be, by Section 98 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881.(5) The Court, when so moved as foresaid, shall hold, or cause to be held, an enquiry accordingly and shall record a finding as to the true value, as near as may be, at which the property of the deceased should have been estimated. The Collector shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry. (6) For the purposes of any such inquiry, the Court or person authorized by the Court to hold the enquiry may examine the petitioner for probate or letters of administration on oath (whether in person or by commission), and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the property. The person authorized as aforesaid to hold the inquiry shall return to the Court the evidence taken by him and report the result of the inquiry, and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceeding, and the Court may record a finding in accordance with the report, unless it is satisfied that it is erroneous. (7) The finding of the Court recorded under sub-section (5) shall be final, but shall not bar the entertainment and disposal by the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority of any application under Section 19-A. (8) The State Government may make rules for the guidance of Collectors in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (3). In Pritish Kumar Mitra v. Prosanto Kumar, AIR 1970 Cal. 236, it was observed :- The succession of steps and events in a probate proceeding are:
(1) An application for Probate or Letters of Administration is made to the court;
(2) The court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Collector;
(3) The Collector shall hold an enquiry into the matter and if he is of opinion that the value of the property has been underestimated may require the petitioner to amend the valuation;
(4) If the petitioner does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, the Collector may move the court;
(5) The court, when so moved, shall hold or cause to be held an enquiry and record a finding as to the true value.That finding of the court shall be final. All these are clearly appearing in the several sub-sections of Section 19-H. Further Section 19-I of Act lays down :-
"(1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letter of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the court, a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation.(2) The grant of probate or letter of administration shall not be delayed by reason of any motion made by Collector under section 19-H sub-section (4)."
(1) Any excess fee found to be payable on an inquiry held under Section 19-h, sub-section (6), and any penalty or forfeiture under Section 19-G may, on the certificate of the chief controlling revenue authority, be recovered from the executor or administrator as if it were an arrear of land revenue by any Collector.
(2) The chief controlling revenue authority may remit the whole or any part of any such penalty or forfeiture as aforesaid, or any part of any penalty under Section 19-E or of any court-fee under Section 19-E in excess of the full court-fee which ought to have been paid.The section is divided into two sub-sections. While sub-section (1) provides for recovery of deficiency in court-fee found in inquiry under Section 19-H, or penalty or forfeiture under Section 19-G, sub-section (2) empowers the chief controlling revenue authority to remit any penalty or forfeiture under Section 19-E or 19-G or and court-fee payable in excess under Section 19-E. Section 19-K of Act provides that nothing in Section 6 or Section 28 shall apply to probates or letter of administration.
(i) The fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by such court in its appellate jurisdiction, and by the other Civil and Revenue Court established within the local limit of such jurisdiction;
(ii) the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the Criminal Courts established within such limits in the case of offences other than offences for which public officers may arrest without a warrant; and
(iii) the remuneration of the peons and all other persons employed by leave of a court in the service or execution of processes.The High Court may from time to time alter and add to the rules so made. All such rules and alterations and additions shall, after being confirmed by the State Government, be published in the official Gazette and shall thereupon have the force of law. Until such rules shall be so made and published, the fees now leviable for serving and executing processes shall continue to be levied and shall be deemed to be fees leviable under this Act. A table in the English and Vernacular languages showing the fees chargeable for such service and execution shall be exposed to view in a conspicuous part of each Court. (Section 21). Subject to rules to be made by the High Court and approved by the State Government, every District Judge and every Magistrate of a district shall fix, and may, from time to time, alter the number of peons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued out of his court and each of the Courts subordinate thereto. And for the purposes of this section every Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court of the District Judge. (Section 22). Subject to rules to be framed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and approved by the State Government, every officer performing the functions of a Collector of a District shall fix and may, from time to time, alter the number of peons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued out of his Court or the Courts subordinate to him. (Section 23).
(a) the supply of stamps to be used under this Act.
(b) the number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee chargeable under this Act.
(c) the renewal of damaged or spoiled stamp.
(d) the keeping of all accounts of all stamps used under this Act:
Provided that in the case of stamps used under Section 3 in a High Court such rules shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of such Court.All such rules shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall thereupon have the force of law.
(1) The State Government may make rules for determining the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in suits mentioned in Section 7(v), (vi) and (x)(d) of the Court-fees Act.
(2) The rules may determine the value of any class of land, or of any interest in land in the whole or any part of a local area and may prescribe different values for different places within the same local area.The above section empowers the State Government to make rules for the valuation of land for the purposes of jurisdiction in the following cases :-
(i) Suits for possession of land (Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act) :
(ii) Suits for pre-emption with reference to land. [Section 7(vi) of the Court-fees Act]; and
(iii) Suits for the specific performance of an award relating to land or an interest therein. [Section 7 (x)(d) of the Court-fees Act].Under this section local (State) government has been empowered to make rules for determining the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in suits falling under Section 7(v), (vi) and (x)(d) of the Court-fees Act. Where the value of the subject-matter has been determined by rules under Section 9, its value for purposes of jurisdiction can never exceed the value of land as determined by rules framed under this section does not exist in all the States. It exists only in those states where the provision of Part I of this Act have been extended by notification. Ram Sekhar Prasad v. Sheo Nandan, AIR 1923 Pat. 137. Section 4 of the Act is supplementary to section 3 above. It applies to certain classes of suits which are not covered by Section 3. It provides that where a suit mentioned in section 7(iv) or Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act relates to land or an interest therein of which the value has been determined by the rules under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules. This section indicates that the principle adopted by the legislature for valuing a suit mentioned in section 7(iv) or Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court-fees Act, which relates to land or interest in land is that the value of such a suit for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be governed by the value of the land or interest therein. When such values are not determined by rules framed under the present section, they must be determined by judicial decisions. (Dayaram v. Goverdhan Das, 31 Bom. 71). It is important to note that the above Section fixes the maximum value of the jurisdiction in the suits to which it relates and does not deal with any minimum, which apparently has been left for judicial decisions. (Sohan Singh v. Devi Singh, 46 Ind. Cases 90).