Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS 239 of 1979 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode-I. They filed the suit for realisation of Rs 1,400/-. The suit was dismissed and counter-claim of the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,662.50 was allowed. Plaintiffs filed appeal as AS 56 of 1980 and the Sub Judge, Kozhikode dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred under S.96(4) of the CPC. 2. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the learned Sub Judge went wrong in dismissing the appeal overlooking the fact that it relates to the plaint claim as well as the counter-claim, the amount or value of both together exceeding Rs.3,000/-. As the trial Court had dismissed the plaint claim and allowed the counter-claim plaintiffs were compelled to file appeal challenging both the findings. In the appeal memorandum before the Sub-Court the challenge is against the dismissal of the suit as well as against the counter-claim being allowed. That being the position it has to be necessarily held that the value of the subject matter of the suit is more than Rs.3,000/-. As the issues in the suit as well as the defence taken up in the counter-claim are very much inter-linked and as the plaintiffs have paid court fees in the appeal both for their claim in the suit as well as against the counter-claim it would not be possible to hold that the value of the subject matter of the suit is less than Rs.3,000/- attracting the bar under S.96(4) of the CPC. A counter-claim is in the nature of a plaint in a counter-suit and has to be charged with court fee on that footing 3. S.96(4) CPC provides that there shall be no appeal except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. The suit has not been defined in the CPC. The amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is the claim in the suit and as a counter-claim has been made, that also. The suit has not been defined in the CPC. The amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is the claim in the suit and as a counter-claim has been made, that also. As the appeal before the Sub Court is against the judgment of the Court disallowing the plaint claim and allowing the counter-claim and as both together exceed more than Rs.3,000/- it has to be held that S.96(4) CPC will not operate as a bar to the appeal. 4. R.6A to 6G of O.8 CPC deal with counter-claim. R.6A provides that a defendant in a suit can, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under R.6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of me plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to him either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. Proviso to R.6A makes it clear that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Clause.2 of R.6A provides that counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. Clause.4 states that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to a plaint. When a counter-claim is set up by the defendant against the claim of the plaintiff it will have to be necessarily considered by the Court. As the counter-claim has to be treated as a plaint and as it is governed by the rules applicable to plaints the value of the subject matter of the suit cannot be limited to the plaint claim only. It must necessarily take in the amount claimed in the plaint and in the counter claim. In the appeal before the Sub Court plaintiffs have challenged the rejection of the plaint claim and the finding of the Court allowing the counter-claim. It must necessarily take in the amount claimed in the plaint and in the counter claim. In the appeal before the Sub Court plaintiffs have challenged the rejection of the plaint claim and the finding of the Court allowing the counter-claim. As counterclaim has the same effect as a cross suit and as the Court is bound to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim as well as on the counter-claim the value of the subject matter or me suit cannot be confined to what has been set out in the plaint alone disregarding the value of the subject matter in the counter-claim. Thus in a case where an appeal is filed against the finding in the suit and the counter-claim and if the value of both exceeds more than Rs.3,000/- it cannot be said that the appeal would be barred under S.96 (4) of the CPC on the ground that plaint claim alone is below Rs.3,000/ 5. That being the position the Court below was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it is barred under S.96(4) of the CPC. The judgment of the Court below is therefore not sustainable. 6. The judgment and decree of the Court below are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Sub-Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The CRP stands allowed. There is no order as to costs.