JUDGMENT Kaul and Walford, J. - We have before us an office report relating to the question of court-fee. It appears that the plaint in the suit, to which this appeal relates was amended on the 8th of March, 1940, and a specific prayer asking for award of future mesne profits was added to the relief already claimed. Though the relief para, was amended no valuation was fixed upon this new relief nor was any court-fee levied. It is suggested by the office that this was presumably done on the ground that Order 7 rule 2 of the CPC did not apply to future means profits as it was impossible to give even the approximate amount of such profit. 2. After inviting attention to this fact, the I office report proceeds as follows : As there appears to be no authoritative decision of this Hon'ble Court on the question whether or not Order 7, rule 2, C.P.C. is applicable to future mesne profits also, so as to compel the plaintiff to give a 'tentative valuation to such relief in his plaint, this report may be laid before the Court for orders. 2. Order 7 rule 2 of the CPC runs as follows: Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed: Bat where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, the plaint shall state approximately the amount sued for. 3. We are of opinion that this rule has no application to future mesne profits. It follow s from the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Fakharuddin Mahomed Ahsan v. Official Trustee of Bengal (1881) 8 Cal 178 that whether the plaint does or does not claim future mesne profits the power to grant them vests in the Court. Subsequent profits, as the term implies, are profits accruing subsequent to the institution of the suit. There is no cause of action as regards such profits at the time of the filing of the plaint. It is by virtue of a special pro- vision that such profits can be claimed or awarded. This is an exception to the general rule that the relief granted is confined to rights accruing before the date of the suit. There is no cause of action as regards such profits at the time of the filing of the plaint. It is by virtue of a special pro- vision that such profits can be claimed or awarded. This is an exception to the general rule that the relief granted is confined to rights accruing before the date of the suit. The Legislature has expressly enabled the Courts to grant such relief with the beneficent object of preventing unnecessary litigation. (See Order 20 rule 12 C.P.C.) They relate to a matter in respect of which no cause of action has arisen. In view of the provisions of Order 20 rule 12 of the CPC where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree directing an inquiry, not only as to the mesne profits accrued due up to the date of the suit, but also mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the' delivery of possession to the decree-holder. It is clear therefore, that it is not necessary to make a specific prayer in the plaint for future mesne profits. These, as follows from the decision of their Lordships in the case of Fakharuddin Mahomad Ahsan v. Official Trustee of Bengal are awarded by virtue of a special provision. According this is a relief which can be granted without being asked. Consequently no question of putting a separate valuation upon that relief can arise.