( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in os. 546 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,766-17p. The defendant filed a written statement wherein he made a counter-claim against the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 3,808-50p. On that statement, the learned Munsiff framed issue No. 4 which reads :" Whether the plaintiff proves that the counter claim of the defendant is not legally sustainable, if so, what effect ? "the said issue was heard by the learned Munsiff as a preliminary issue and a finding has been recorded in the negative and against the plaintiff. In the course of the order, the learned Munsiff has observed that the counter-claim made by the plaintiff in his re-joinder to the written statement of the defendant, cannot be allowed as there is no provision of law for making such a counter-claim. ( 2 ) IN this revision, the plaintiff has raised two grounds. First, it is urged that the counter-claim of the defendant is virtually for a sum of Rs. 11,000 and odd, and after adjusting the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,808-50p and since, in substance, the counter-claim of the defendant is for a sum more than Rs. 10,000, which claim cannot be entertained in the Court of the Munsiff, the counter-claim ought not to have been allowed. The second ground urged is that if the counter-claim of the defendant has to be treated as a plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to make a counter-claim to the defendant's counter-claim, and the learned Munsiff is in error in holding that there is no provision of law for making such a claim. ( 3 ) SHRI Shantharaju, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the finding of the Court below is only on issue No. 4, and that issue does not require the Court below to give any finding on the question whether the counter-claim raised by the plaintiff in his rejoinder can or cannot be entertained. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel. I have been taken through the order of the learned Munsiff and also the pleadings in the case. In the written statement, the defendant does not seek recovery of a sum of rs. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel. I have been taken through the order of the learned Munsiff and also the pleadings in the case. In the written statement, the defendant does not seek recovery of a sum of rs. 11,000 and odd from the plaintiff; what it seeks is only a sum of rs. 3,808-50p. The defendant has adjusted the sum claimed by the plaintiff and has claimed the balance amount outstanding. When the defendant has already adjusted the amount due to it from the plaintiff and the amount in excess outstanding alone has been claimed, such a claim will not take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff. If a plaintiff brings a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000 or less, after he adjusts the sum due from the defendant, will the plaintiff's suit be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff? It will not be. The same principle applies to the case of a counter-claim. Shri Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not placed any authority in support of his contention that the counter-claim of the defendant should be deemed to be for a sum inclusive of the amount which it has adjusted. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the counter-claim made by the defendant, is sustainable, is correct. ( 5 ) THE second ground urged by Shri Pai, however, has to succeed. The finding of the Court below is only on issue No. 4. No issue has been raised on the contention of the defendant that the counter-claim made in the re-joinder is not maintainable. If the defendant wants to raise any such contention, an issue to that effect has to be framed and a finding recorded thereon. Therefore, the observation of the learned Munsiff that the counter-claim made in the rejoinder of the plaintiff, is not maintainable, is set aside. I do not express any opinion since there is no issue on that question. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision petition is allowed in part and the order of the Court below is modified in the light of this order. No costs. --- *** --- .