( 1 ) THIS revision at the instance of the plaintiff is filed against the orders calling upon him to pay Court fee under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") by filing the market value certificate of the properties in view of the subsequent amendments adding the prayers for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions made. Initially, the petitioner filed the suit in O. S. No. 48 of 1990 on 29-1-1990 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with his possession over the suit land. Pending the suit, the petitioner sought interim injunction in LA. No. 102 of 1990 which was dismissed after hearing both the sides. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1990 on 10-4-1991 granting injunction as sought for. These orders were confirmed by this Court in C. R. P. No. 2007 of 1991 by orders dated 2-9-1993. In another parallel suit in O. S. No. 64 of 1987, on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner also obtained an order for police aid in LA. No. 58 of 1990. Later on in the same suit, on the appointment of a commissioner as per orders in LA. No. 57 of 1990, a report was filed on 31-8-1996 which is to the effect that the respondents herein have made constructions and built a complex. The case of the petitioner was that in spite of the injunction order, the constructions were made and accordingly the petitioner had moved an application in la. No. 3371 of 1998 seeking amendment of the plaint by adding two prayers viz. , for recovery of possession of second schedule and for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions, which was allowed as per orders dated 17-11-1998, As a consequence to this amendment and addition of the two pravers, the Court below directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 24 of the Act by filing the necessary market value certificates of the properties against which the reliefs were claimed.

( 2 ) SRI Venkata Raghu Ramulu, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the suit as initially filed is one for injunction and it is only due to the subsequent acts ot the respondents herein in making constructions contrary to the injunction orders in the said suit, it necessitated for addition of the prayers of possession and mandatory injunction and, therefore, these prayers which are added subsequently are only ancillary and incidental reliefs but not the main relief and, therefore, under section 6 of the Act, the Court fee having already been paid for the main relief of permanent injunction, there is no necessity to pay any Court fee for the added reliefs.

( 3 ) SRI K. Mahipathy Rao, Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that admittedly the suit was one for injunction and later on substantive reliefs of possession and mandatory injunction were added and, therefore, the initial relief of injunction transforms into a consequential relief to the reliefs which have been added and the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee on the main reliefs as added.

( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the question which falls for consideration in this revision is consequent to the addition of prayers of possession and mandatory injunction in a suit for bare injunction, which of the reliefs partakes of the character of the main relief and whether it attracts any payment of additional Court fee?

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit was filed initially for perpetual injunction against the respondents and pending the suit, the petitioner had ultimately got interim injunction in his favour and during this interregnum and in violation of the said injunction order, the petitioner alleges, the respondents have encroached upon the suit land and made substantial construction even though there was police aid in another suit. On the appointment of the commissioner and the report filed by him, it was