This is a Civil Revision petition against the finding of the Munsiff, Sadar on pre­liminary issues 3 and 4 in the Suit wherein he held that the Court-fees paid by the respondent for his counter-claim in M. S. No. 8 of 1957 in the Subordinate Judge's Court can be validly used as Court-fee for his plaint in M. S. No. 124 of 1957 on the file of the Munsiff, Sadar. (2) The petitioner herein filed M. S. No-. 8 of 1957 against the respondent and his son in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala claiming a sum of Rs. 2100/- on the basis of an oral loan taken by them from him. The respondent herein who was the first defendant in the Suit denied the claim in his written statement and at the same time he made a counter-claim against the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 1400/- on the basis of an oral loan. He also paid the necessary Court-fee for the counter-claim. The petitioner denied the counter­claim. Issues were also framed in the suit regarding the truth of the petitioner's claim and regarding the truth of the counter-claim. The learned Sub­ordinate Judge appears to have taken evidence on the claim of the petitioner as well as the counter­claim made by the respondent. But in dismissing the Suit filed by the peti­tioner, the Subordinate Judge stated in his judgment that the counter-claim cannot be asserted in that Suit by the respondent alone against toe peti­tioner as the second defendant in that Suit had nothing to do with the said counter-claim. He, therefore held that die counter-claim was not main­tainable in the said proceeding and was enforceable only by a. separate Suit. He did not however direct that the plaint relating to the counter-claim should be returned for presentation to the proper Court, The counter-claim being only for Rs. 1400/- had to be presented in the Munsiff's Court. (3) The respondent at that stage had two courses open. He could have taken the matter in appeal or revision and insisted that the counter-claim must be disposed of in that proceeding itself or he could have taken back the written statement in which he had made the counter-claim and presented it in the proper Court. (3) The respondent at that stage had two courses open. He could have taken the matter in appeal or revision and insisted that the counter-claim must be disposed of in that proceeding itself or he could have taken back the written statement in which he had made the counter-claim and presented it in the proper Court. He chose the latter course and appli­ed to the Subordinate Judge for return of his written statement along with the Court-fee paid thereon and he presented the said written statement and the Court-fee paid thereon along with his plaint in the present Suit. (4) The learned Munsiff before whom the peti­tioner contended that the Subordinate Judge had finally heard and disposed of the counter-claim and thus used the Court-fee paid on the counter­claim and that the Subordinate Judge cannot, there­fore, return the written statement and Court-fee for presentation and use in another Suit, rejected the said plea and held that the Court-fee has not been exhausted before the Subordinate Judge and could be used in the second Suit instituted on the counter­claim. (5) It was contended before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge had taken evidence on the counter-claim and had held that it was not maintainable in that pro­ceeding but only by a separate Suit, that this was a finding regarding the maintainability of the counter­claim and hence the Court-fee paid on die counter­claim must be treated as having been used up and that if the respondent wanted to file a separate Suit regarding his counter-claim he ought to have paid separate Court-fee instead of using the same Court-fee. I am unable to understand this plea at all. A counter-claim when raised in the written statement is as good as a separate Suit and it is usually allowed to be raised by the defendant to the suit itself in order to avoid multiplicity of pro­ceedings. The Court may proceed to decide the counter-claim in the same Suit if Court-fee has been paid on it or the Court may refuse to go into the counter-claim in that Suit and direct the party to present it in the proper Court for disposal. We are not concerned in this case as to whether the Sub­ordinate Judge used that discretion in a proper manner, as the order of die Subordinate Judge be­came final. We are not concerned in this case as to whether the Sub­ordinate Judge used that discretion in a proper manner, as the order of die Subordinate Judge be­came final. We are only concerned with the effect of that order. (6) The learned Subordinate Judge did not go into the merits of the counter-claim at all in that Suit, even though he appears to have taken evidence.. He did not also dismiss the counter-claim. All that he held in his judgment was that die claim cannot be agitated in that Suit, but that it must be done only by a separate Suit. By no stretch of imagina­tion can it be said that this amounted to a disposal of the counter-claim on the merits. The learned Subordinate Judge himself could have treated the counter-claim as a separate Suit and decided it separately. But it happened that if it was treated as « separate Suit it was the Munsiff Court which had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the counter­claim. It would of course, have been better if he had directed in his judgment itself that the counter­claim will be returned to the party for presentation to the proper Court. But instead of doing so he made the order on a separate application made by the respondent. (7) I am not concerned for the present with the question as to whether the counter-claim can be maintained as a separate Suit in the face of the Sub­ordinate Judge's finding. I find that issues 2 and 5 have been raised in the Suit as to whether the Suit was maintainable in its present form and as to whether it was barred by principles of res judicata. They still remain to be decided by the Munsiff. The only question before me is whether the Court-fee has already been used up in the previous case. The Court-fee can be said to have been used up and exhausted only if there has been an adjudica­tion as to the truth or maintainability of the counter­-claim. The learned Subordinate judge in returning the written statement with the Court-fee has himself held that the Court-fee has not been used up. Nor does his judgment show, as I have stated, that there has been any adjudication regarding the counter­claim. My finding therefore is that the learned Munsiff's finding on issues 3 and 4 is quite correct. The learned Subordinate judge in returning the written statement with the Court-fee has himself held that the Court-fee has not been used up. Nor does his judgment show, as I have stated, that there has been any adjudication regarding the counter­claim. My finding therefore is that the learned Munsiff's finding on issues 3 and 4 is quite correct. The Revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.