Chamber Orders on Court Fee Valuation Without Hearing Parties Violate Natural Justice: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has ruled that judicial determinations regarding the sufficiency of court fees cannot be made in chambers without granting the plaintiff a fair hearing. A Single Judge Bench of P. Sam Koshy, Acting Chief Justice was hearing a revision petition filed under Constitution of India challenging a memo issued by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner had assailed the lower court’s directive which, acting on an internal office note, mandated the revaluation of his suit for declaration and damages under a more expensive provision of the court fee law without inviting arguments from the petitioner’s counsel.

Key Takeaways

Natural Justice in Scrutiny

Court fee determinations at the scrutiny stage are judicial acts, not mere administrative notes, and require hearing the plaintiff if the valuation is doubted.

Averments as Primary Basis

For the purpose of determining the court fee payable at the time of registration, the court must exclusively rely on the allegations contained in the plaint.

Executant vs Non-Executant Distinction

Litigants who are not parties to a document in their own right are not required to seek 'cancellation' under Section 37, but may seek a 'declaration' under Section 24 of the Court Fee Act.

Judicial Determination Requires Open Court Hearing

The Telangana High Court observed that the impugned memo was more than a routine note; it was a judicial determination under Section 11(1)(a) of the Telangana Court Fee Suit Valuation Act, 1956. By deciding the question in chambers, the lower court deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to justify his valuation. The Bench noted that such directions expose a plaint to the risk of rejection, thereby attracting civil consequences that necessitate a prior hearing.

The Telangana High Court observed that “If the Court was not satisfied with the valuation the plaintiff or his counsel should have been called to the bench and heard before any order was made. A decision taken without such a hearing offends the principles of natural justice and the memo is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.”

Ratio

A judicial order determining the proper court fee under Section 11 of the Court Fee Act is a judicial act affecting the plaintiff’s right to seek legal redress; therefore, any such determination made without hearing the plaintiff or their counsel is a violation of natural justice and is liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution. Furthermore, a plaintiff seeking to declare a deed null and void to which they are not an executant in their own right is not bound to pay court fees for 'cancellation' under Section 37 of the Act.

Background

The petitioner, a businessman, had signed a sale deed as a nominee on behalf of a company based on representations made by a friend. Subsequently, the company filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud, leading to harassment of the petitioner. Seeking to clear his name, the petitioner filed a suit to declare the sale deed null and void, valuing it under Section 24 of the Telangana Court Fee Suit Valuation Act, 1956. The trial court, however, issued a chamber memo directing him to value the suit under Section 37(a)(1) based on the property's market value.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam and Nade Ali Mirza v. Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala to argue that the court must proceed based on plaint averments. The Telangana High Court agreed, noting that since the petitioner did not claim title or seek to recover possession, he did not stand in the position of an executant seeking to avoid his own deed. The Bench set aside the memo, while clarifying that the defendants remain protected under Section 11(2) of the Act to raise pleas of undervaluation in their written statements.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2592 of 2026
Case Title: Mohammed Zakir Osman v. M/s. IRIS Hospitals Private Limited and 6 Others.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.A.Achutanand, Senior Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 34928