JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This petition by Defendants 1 and 2 is directed against the order dated 15-4-1971 passed by the Munsif, Berhampur in T.S. No. 140/67 dismissing their counter claim. 2. The opposite party had taken a mortgage of the suit house from the Petitioners. It was a mortgage by conditional sale. The mortgage document was executed on 30-31962 and the time stipulated for repayment of the loan was 5 years i.e. the time of repayment of loan was 30-3-1967, and thereafter, in default of payment of mortgage loan, the sale would become absolute. The mortgagee, opposite party filed T.S. No. 140/67 against the Defendants-Petitioners for a decree for making the sale of the suit house absolute in his favour. 3. The Petitioners filed their written statement disputing the Plaintiff's claim. They made a cross claim for a decree declaring that the mortgage stood redeemed and directing the Plaintiff-mortgagee to deliver possession of the suit house to them together with all the documents relating to the mortgaged property and for future mesne profits till delivery of possession and for costs. They also paid necessary Court fees for the said reliefs. 4. T.S. No. 140/67 was dismissed for default and the petition for restoration also was dismissed. On 17-4-1970, the munsif, while dismissing the petition for restoration of the suit, ordered further that- So far as the counter claim is concerned, the case will proceed and Plaintiff in the original suit who is contesting the counter claim is set ex parte and the case is posted for hearing on the counter claim to 11-5-1970. 5. On 28-9-1970 the Plaintiff filed an application u/s 151, CPC contending that the counter claim of the Defendants was not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the original suit on 17-4-1970. This petition was disposed of in favour of the Plaintiff on 15-4-1971. It was held that the cross suit was not maintainable in law inasmuch as after dismissal of T.S. No. 140/67, the counter claim cannot stand independently even though Court fee has been paid. It is from this order that the Civil Revision has been preferred. 6. The counter claim of the Defendants is not covered by Order 8 Rule 6, CPC as the cross claim is not in the nature of a set off. It is from this order that the Civil Revision has been preferred. 6. The counter claim of the Defendants is not covered by Order 8 Rule 6, CPC as the cross claim is not in the nature of a set off. The counter claim is substantially a cross action and since Court fee on the counter claim has been paid there is no bar for the Court to treat the counter claim as a plaint in a cross suit. Where no Court fee is paid on the counter claim, there is no obligation on the Court to call upon the Defendant to pay Court fee on the written statement pleading a counter claim, and in such a case, the Court would be justified in refusing to consider the same. But where Court fee has been paid it is proper that the cross claim should be treated as a separate suit and proceeded with even though the main suit has been dismissed, for default. In the case of Sarangdhar Singh and Another Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Wahi their Lordships while dealing with a counter claim which was founded on a cause of action different from the claim in the main suit and that the main claim and the counter claim did not arise out of nor do they relate to the same transaction on which the Plaintiff's claim was based. In the context of such facts their Lordships said: A counter claim is substantially a cross-action and need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or even analogous thereto. Though there is no provision in the Code of making a counter-claim, a Court has got the power to treat the counter claim as a plaint in the cross-suit and hear them together, if the counter-claim is properly stamped. In the case of Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala Vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala and Others while considering a contention that a cross claim not covered by Order 8 Rule 6, CPC cannot be entertained by a Civil Court as a cross suit, their lordships of the Supreme Court said: The question has therefore to be considered on principle as to whether there is anything in law statutory or otherwise which precludes a Court from treating a counter-claim as a plaint in a cross suit. We are unable to see any. We are unable to see any. No doubt, the CPC prescribes the contents of a plaint and it might very well be that a counter-claim which is to be treated as a cross-suit might not conform to all these requirements but this by itself is not sufficient to deny to the Court the power and the jurisdiction to read and construe the pleadings in a reasonable manner. If, for instance, what is really a plaint in a cross-suit is made part of a written statement either by being made an annexure to it or as part and parcel thereof, though described as a counter-claim, there could be no legal objection to the Court treating the same as a plaint and granting such relief to the Defendant as would have been open if the pleading held taken the form of a plaint. Mr. Desai had to concede that in such a case the Court was not prevented from separating the written statement proper from what was described as a counter-claim and treating the latter as a cross suit. If so much is conceded it would then become merely a matter of degree as to whether the counter-claim contains all the necessary requisites sufficient to be treated as a plaint making a claim for the relief sought and if it did it would seem proper to hold that it would be open to a Court to convert or treat the counter-claim as a plaint in a cross suit. To hold otherwise would be to erect what in substance is a mere defect in the form of pleading into an instrument for denying what justice manifestly demands. We need only add that it was not suggested that there was anything on Order 8 Rule 6 or in any other provision of the Code which laid an embargo on a Court adopting such a course. Thus, where the Defendant, as here, in a suit sets out a counter claim as a weapon of offence to enforce a claim against the Plaintiff as effectively as in an independent action, the main purpose for allowing the Defendant to do so, when requisite Court fee has been paid on the counter claim is to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding between him and the Plaintiff. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the counter claim of the Defendants can properly be trested as a cross suit and tried. In fact, the Munsif had passed such an order on 17-4-1970. The Court fees have been paid and there was no legal bar for the Munsif to proceed with a counter claim as a cross suit. I do not find any legal basis for the impugned order by which he has ordered the cross suit as not maintainable in law on the ground that the main suit has been dismissed for default. In doing so the trial Court has obviously refused to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. 8. In the result, therefore, I set aside the order under revision, direct that the munsif should try the cross claim as an independent suit and proceed with it to the end of its trial in accordance with law. This revision is allowed with costs which is assessed at one goldmohur.