S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs filed against the defendants a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and for taking accounts. The Trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiffs preliminary decree for dissolution and R accounts. The defendants appealed against that preliminary decree to the - District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal. The defendants challenged that appellate decree in a second appeal which they filed in this Court. It was dismissed Certificate of fitness to appeal under Letters Patent was not granted. The defendants filed in the Supreme Court Special Leave Petition in order to challenge the second appellate decree of this Court. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition and refused to grant special leave. Thereafter Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court to take accounts between the parties and to make a report. Pursuant to the report of the Commissioner the Trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiffs final decree on 16th April 1970 for a sum of Rs. 68973. 98 p. The Trial Court awarded to the plaintiffs future or pendente lite interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of final decree till realization. It did not award any costs to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed against that final decree to the District Court. In that appeal the plaintiffs filed cross-objections in which they prayed for two-fold relief. They claimed that the Trial Court ought to have granted them future or pendente lite interest not from the date of the decree but from the date of the suit. They therefore claimed future or pendente lite interest on 29th June 1964-the date of the institution of the suit until 16th April 1970 date of final decree. They also claimed their costs of the Trial Court. Both the appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed by the District Court with costs. The defendants challenged that appellate decree in a second appeal which they filed in this Court. It was dismissed. Certificate of fitness to appeal under Letters Patent was also refused to them. The plaintiffs in their turn filed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of their cross-objections which they had filed in the appeal before the District Court. In this second appeal they claim two reliefs. It was dismissed. Certificate of fitness to appeal under Letters Patent was also refused to them. The plaintiffs in their turn filed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of their cross-objections which they had filed in the appeal before the District Court. In this second appeal they claim two reliefs. They claim that they should be awarded future or pendente lite interest from the date of the suit-29th June 1964 to 16th April 1970 in addition to what has been awarded to them. They also claim costs of the Trial Court. They have filed this appeal without paying any court-fee. According to them the claim as to interest and costs was an incidental claim and therefore no court-fee was payable on it. This dispute was referred to the Taxing officer under sec. 4 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 The Taxing Officer after hearing the parties has taken the view that no court-fee is payable in respect of the relief as to costs which the plaintiffs seek in their second appeal but court-fee is payable on relief as to future or pendente lite interest which they claim in the appeal. ( 2 ) HAVING been aggrieved by that order the plaintiffs have filed this Revision Application under sec. 4 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 ( 3 ) THE Taxing Officer has recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiffs that no court-fee is payable in respect of the relief as to costs. This part of the finding has not been challenged before me on behalf of the State of Gujarat. I am therefore expressing no opinion on the soundness or otherwise of that part of the Taxing Officers order. So far as the Taxing Officers order regarding the payability of court-fee on relief as to future or pendente lite interest is concerned there is only one contention which Mr. Sompura has raised before me. In my opinion the order made by the Taxing Officer in that behalf is quite correct and according to law. ( 4 ) MR. Sompura has invited my attention to Article 1 in Schedule I to the Bombay Court-fees Acts 1959 which inter alia provides for payment of court-fee on the plaint or memorandum of appeal. Column 2 an st Article I in Schedule I to the Act provides that the court-fee is payable on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute. Column 2 an st Article I in Schedule I to the Act provides that the court-fee is payable on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute. The question which has been raised before me is this: what is the subject matter in dispute in the second appeal? If relief is sought against the decree itself passed by the Court below then the subject matter in dispute is the decretal amount. In such a case relief claimed against the award of interest is ai consequential relief. In other words it is an incidental relief. The relief as to future or pendente lite interest in such a case meets with the same fact with which the relief against the decretal amount meets. In other words where the principal part of the decree is challenged the relief as to future or pendente lite interest is not the principal or independent relief unless in such a case it has been specifically claimed against the award of future or pendente lite interest. Where the relief sought against the award of future or pendente lite interest is not the principal or independent relief no court-fee is payable on the relief claimed against the award of future or pendente lite interest. However where the principal or substantive part of the decree is not challenged but where only the order as to future interest made by the Court below is challenged which is an independent principal and the only relief which is claimed that relief becomes the subject matter of dispute in appeal and the appellant must pay court-fee on the amount of future or pendente lite interest in respect of which alone independently or principally he seeks relief. ( 5 ) IN STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MISHRILAL TARACHAND LODHA AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1964 SUPREME COURT 457 a similar question under the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 arose before the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) IN STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MISHRILAL TARACHAND LODHA AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1964 SUPREME COURT 457 a similar question under the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 arose before the Supreme Court. After having dealt with the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties this is what the Supreme Court has held: we therefore hold that the amount of pendente lite interest decreed is not to be included in the amount or value of the subject Matter in dispute in appeal for the purposes of Art. I of Schedule I of the Act unless the appellant specifically challenges the correctness of the decree for the amount of interest pendente lite independently of the claim to set aside that decree. (vide paragraph 20 of the report) in my opinion the present case is governed by the exception to the rule which the Supreme Court has stated in that decision. Therefore the order made by the Taxing Officer suffers from no infirmity and I see no reason to interfere with it. ( 6 ) IN the result this Revision Application fails and is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The appellant shall pay up the requisite amount of Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal within two weeks. .