PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES
A PROJECT REPORT PREPARED ON THE TOPIC:
Section 20-30 of the Court Fees Act, 1870
FOR THE SUBJECT OF LAW OF REGISTRATION AND
COURT FEE ACT,1870
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Ms. Priya Singla Name- Mehul Arora
Teacher In-Charge Section- B
UILS Roll number-91/21
Panjab University B.A.LL.B Semester- 8th
1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Presentation, inspiration, and motivation have always played a key role in the success of any
venture.
I express my sincere thanks to Professor Renu Vig, Vice- Chancellor, Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India.
I pay my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Shruti Bedi (Director) of University Institute of Legal
Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh to encourage me to the highest peak and for
providing me the opportunity to prepare the project. I am immensely obliged to my friends for
their elevating inspiration, encouraging guidance, and kind supervision during the completion
of my project.
I feel to express my indebtedness and a deep sense of gratitude to my guide Ms. Priya Mam
whose valuable guidance and kind supervision given to me throughout the course shaped the
present work as its shown.
Last, but not least, my parents are an immensely important source of inspiration for me. So,
with due regard, I express my gratitude towards them.
2|Page
DEFINITION
Court fee may be defined as fee paid purportedly to cover administrative costs, at the start of
each new court filing. A fee (such as a “filing fee”) which may be imposed upon a litigant in
order begin a lawsuit or start a legal dispute resolution case. The fee may represent covering
administrative costs.
In India this can refer to stamps that may be attached to court documents which instruct the
payment of fees. It may also refer to collection matters.
A fee that is imposed on a litigant to contest a case in the court of law. This fee is levied by the
government on the people seeking judicial remedies through a legislation.
HISTORY OF THE COURT FEES
The Courts are institutions where the aggrieved go to seek justice. With the establishment of
Courts in India, a system evolved for the payment of fees for the adjudication of cases. The
rates of stamp fees leviable in courts and offices established beyond the local jurisdiction of
the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William in
Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay and in proceedings on the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts
were governed by the Act XXVI of 1867. However, within a span of about two years, it was
considered necessary to make a general reduction in the rates on the institution of civil suits
and to rely on the principle of maximum fee which was obtained under the previous law. Also,
in order to rectify the repressive effect and to avoid future confusion between stamp-revenue
proper and the revenue derived, a comprehensive bill known as the Court Fees Bill was
introduced in the Legislature. Now it is known as the Court Fees Act, 1870.
OBJECT AND SCOPE OF COURT FEES ACT
The Court-fees Act, as its name signifies, is an Act primarily passed for the purpose of
prescribing the fees which are to be paid in respect of documents to be used in courts. The Act
has no preamble whereby its purpose can be ascertained, but there can be no manner of doubt
that one of its main purposes is to levy fees for services to be rendered by the courts and public
offices.
3|Page
The Act is a fiscal enactment having for its primary object the protection of revenue and not to
coerce the subject. The Act not only prescribes the fees but also provides how these fees are to
be ascertained or determined, and the conditions under which the documents included in the
First and Second Schedules to the Act may be received, filed, registered or used, as the case
may be, in the courts in India. The Act also specifies the documents which need not be stamped
under the Act for the purpose of being used in the courts.
In Chandranani Koer v. Basudev Narain Singh, 49 IC 442, it was observed - It is intended
not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality but to secure revenue to the State. This is
evident from the character of the Act, and is brought out by Section 12, which makes the
decision of the first Court as to value final as between the parties and enables the Court of
appeal to correct any error as to this, only where the first Court decided to the detriment of
revenue.
Justice should be something that should not come with a price-tag. However, there should be
some kind of minimal monetary support to the judiciary so it can function smoothly. Presently,
the sole purpose of court-fees is managing the administrative charges. In State of Madras v
Zenith Lamps, (1970) it was held that the fees collected is for covering the cost of the court
procedure and strictly not for the states to make revenue. In their words, “there must be a broad
co-relationship with the fees collected and the cost of administration of civil justice.”
• The Court Fees Act is a fiscal enactment. Its primary object is to protect the State revenue.
• The Court fees Act was passed not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his
opponent, but to secure revenue for the benefit of the State.
• Court fee is a state debt.
• The govt. has to pay court-fees as much as any other party.
• The another purpose of the Act is to determine the jurisdiction of civil courts
4|Page
PROCESS FEES
Section 20 – Rules As To Cost Of Process
The High Court shall, as soon as maybe, make rules as to the following matters:-
(i) the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by such court in its appellate
jurisdiction and by the other Civil and Revenue Courts established within the local limits 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 police
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.
Confirmation and publication of rules.-All such rules, alterations and additions shall,
after being confirmed by the State Government 1[* * *] be published in the Official Gazette,
and shall there-upon 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.
Section 20 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 grants the High Court the authority to frame rules
regarding the costs of serving and executing court processes. This provision is essential in
ensuring that there is a structured approach to handling process fees in different courts,
including civil, revenue, and criminal courts. The only exception to this rule applies to cases
where police officers have the power to make arrests without a warrant.
This section also covers the fees payable to peons, bailiffs, and process servers, who play a
crucial role in delivering summons, notices, and other legal documents. Without a structured
process fee system, courts might impose arbitrary charges, leading to corruption or financial
irregularities. To ensure transparency and uniformity, the rules prescribed by the High Court
must be confirmed by the State Government and published in the Official Gazette before they
become enforceable.
Furthermore, this section ensures that courts function efficiently by standardizing the expenses
related to judicial processes. This prevents unnecessary delays caused by a lack of clarity in
payment structures.
5|Page
Section 21 – Tables Of Process Fee
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 emphasizes transparency in the court process fee system. According to this section,
the High Court must ensure that the prescribed process fees are clearly published in the Official
Gazette. Additionally, these fees must be displayed in a prominent place in every court,
ensuring that litigants, lawyers, and court staff are well-informed.
The primary objective of this section is to prevent corruption and unauthorized fee collection.
If the court fee tables are not publicly available, there is a risk that litigants may be overcharged
by unscrupulous officials or intermediaries. By making these fee structures publicly accessible,
the law ensures accountability within the judicial system.
This provision also serves as a protective measure for economically weaker litigants, who
might otherwise fall prey to excessive or illegal demands for process fees.
Section 22 – Number Of Peons In District And Subordinate Courts
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.
Section 22 provides the High Court with the power to determine the number of peons required
in district and subordinate courts. Peons and other court staff play a critical role in judicial
administration by serving summons, executing legal processes, and assisting court officials.
If a court has an insufficient number of peons, it may lead to delays in case proceedings due to
inefficiencies in serving notices and executing judicial orders. Conversely, if there is an
excessive number of peons, it could lead to unnecessary financial burdens on the government.
Therefore, this section ensures that courts operate in a balanced and cost-effective manner.
6|Page
Section 23 – Number Of Peons In Revenue Courts
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 mirrors Section 22 but applies to Revenue Courts instead of civil and subordinate
courts. It empowers the State Government to determine the required number of peons in
Revenue Courts, which deal with cases related to land revenue, land disputes, tenancy rights,
and agricultural matters.
This section ensures that Revenue Courts function smoothly by providing adequate support
staff. If an insufficient number of peons are available, it may lead to delays in the service of
revenue-related notices and orders. On the other hand, having too many peons could result in
unnecessary expenditure for the government.
THE MODE OF LEVYING FEES
Section 25 – Collection of fees by stamps
All fees referred to in section 3 or chargeable under this Act shall be collected by stamps.
One of the most significant provisions in this Act, Section 25 mandates that all court fees must
be paid using stamps instead of cash. This ensures that all financial transactions in the judicial
system are traceable, properly accounted for, and free from corruption.
The government issues two types of stamps:
1. Judicial Stamps – Used for court-related transactions, including plaints, appeals, and
other legal proceedings.
2. Non-Judicial Stamps – Used for affidavits, agreements, and contractual documents.
By requiring payment through stamps, the law prevents misuse of funds and ensures that all
court fees go directly to the state treasury.
7|Page
Section 26 – Stamps to be impressed or adhesive
The stamps used to denote any fees chargeable under this Act shall be impressed or adhesive,
or partly impressed and partly adhesive, as the [Appropriate Government] may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, from time to time direct.
Section 26 gives the government the power to decide whether court fees should be paid using
impressed stamps (pre-printed) or adhesive stamps (stickers). The purpose of this provision is
to offer flexibility while ensuring authenticity.
Section 27 –Rules for supply, number, renewal and keeping accounts of
stamps
The [Appropriate Government] may, from time to time, make rules for regulating-
(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 stamps; and
(d) the keeping 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.
Section 27 empowers the State Government to frame rules regarding the supply, number, and
renewal of court fee stamps to ensure their availability to litigants. Since court fee stamps are
essential for legal proceedings, their proper distribution is necessary to prevent delays in justice
due to non-availability. This provision also helps in preventing fraud and black marketing of
stamp papers by ensuring that their circulation remains well-regulated.
The section further provides for rules on renewing damaged or defective stamps, ensuring that
litigants do not face financial losses due to minor wear and tear. This protects their rights and
ensures that judicial proceedings are not unduly delayed. Thus, this section ensures smooth
legal transactions by regulating the supply of stamps and allowing their renewal when
necessary.
8|Page
Section 28 – Stamping documents inadvertently received
No document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act shall be of any validity, unless and
until it is properly stamped. But, if any such document is through mistake or inadvertence
received, filed or used in any Court or office without being properly stamped, the presiding
Judge or the head of the office, as the case may be, or, in the case of a High Court, any Judge
of such Court, may, if he thinks fit, order that such document be stamped as he may direct; and,
on such document being stamped accordingly, the same and every proceeding relative thereto
shall be as valid as if it had been properly stamped in the first instance.
Section 28 provides a way to correct documents that have been presented in court with
inadequate stamp duty. If a document is insufficiently stamped, the court has the discretion to
allow the party to pay the deficiency and validate the document instead of outright rejecting it.
This is an important provision because it ensures that minor mistakes in paying court fees do
not result in severe legal consequences for litigants.
The objective of this section is to ensure fairness and flexibility in court fee payments, so that
cases are not dismissed due to small errors in stamp duty. Thus, Section 28 plays a crucial role
in preventing unnecessary litigation and delays by allowing errors in court fee payments to be
rectified.
Section 29 – Amended document
Where any such document is amended in order merely to correct a mistake and to make it
conform to the original intention of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh
stamp.
Section 29 states that if a document is amended merely to correct a mistake and to align it with
the original intention of the parties, it does not require a fresh stamp. This provision is essential
to prevent unnecessary financial burdens on litigants when simple clerical errors need to be
rectified.
The rationale behind this section is that court fees serve as a levy on legal transactions, not on
mistakes or corrections. If a document is modified to reflect the true agreement or intent at the
time of execution, there is no need for a fresh stamp. However, if the amendment changes the
legal nature of the document, introduces new terms, or creates fresh obligations, then additional
stamp duty must be paid.
For example, if a sale deed originally stated the wrong name of the buyer and is corrected later,
the amendment does not require a fresh stamp because it does not alter the fundamental terms
9|Page
of the document. However, if the amendment increases the sale consideration, it introduces a
new financial obligation, requiring additional stamping.
Thus, Section 29 protects litigants from unnecessary financial hardship while ensuring that
fundamental alterations in legal documents do not escape proper stamp duty.
Section 30 – Cancellation of stamp
No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding
in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled.
Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on
receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figure-
head so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by
punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.
Section 30 mandates that no document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted
upon in any court or office unless the stamp has been properly cancelled. The purpose of this
section is to prevent fraud, ensure proper usage of court fee stamps, and safeguard government
revenue.
The cancellation process is specified as follows:
• The court officer or an authorized official must cancel the stamp by punching out the
figure-head of the stamp, ensuring that the denomination remains visible.
• The removed portion must be burnt or destroyed to prevent reuse.
If a stamp is not cancelled properly, the document is deemed invalid for legal purposes until
the cancellation is done in compliance with this section. This ensures that stamps cannot be
fraudulently reused.
For example, if a party attempts to use an old or improperly cancelled stamp on a new case, the
court will refuse to accept the document until the defect is rectified. Courts have consistently
Significance of Section 30
• Ensures that stamps are used only once and cannot be fraudulently reused.
• Protects government revenue by making sure that court fees are properly collected.
• Prevents litigants from facing legal complications due to the improper use of stamps.
Thus, Section 30 enforces legal and procedural discipline in the use of court fee stamps,
ensuring that documents submitted in court comply with the law.
10 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
Sections 20 to 30 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 are critical in ensuring a structured, fair, and
transparent system for collecting court fees. These provisions protect litigants from excessive
financial burdens, prevent fraud, and maintain accessibility to the justice system. Furthermore,
various judicial interpretations and case laws have reinforced the principles of fairness,
efficiency, and legal certainty embedded in these sections.
11 | P a g e
