ORDER K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The counter claim set up by the defendant against the claim of the plaintiff was disputed by the plaintiff by filing a replication. The court below thereafter settled the issues. Two of the issues thus settled were considered and disposed of by the order under challenge. 3. On going through the order under challenge and the memorandum of revision it is clear that the two points argued before the court below are those covered by two issues: (1) whether the defendant has paid proper court fee on the alleged counter claim? and (2) whether it is imperative for the plaintiff to make an application for an order excluding the counter claim from the purview of the suit? 4. Regarding the first point the court below has held that the defendant has paid proper court fee on the counter claim. However the learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff argues that, inasmuch as the counter claim is in the nature of a suit for account, the defendant, though is entitled to put a tentative valuation upon the claim, cannot be permitted to choose an unreasonable and arbitrary figure for that purpose. The defendant in this case it is further argued, has chosen to give whimsically a ridiculous figure and therefore the court below is bound to reject such a valuation. In support of this argument the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hamid v. Abdul Majid AIR 1988 SC 1150 . It is true that the above argument of the learned counsel is a true reflection of the principle, the Supreme Court" has la d down in the above ruling. But it has no application to the facts of this case because the plaintiff has neither argued such a case before the court below nor taken up such a ground in the C.R.P. The only ground of attack, discernible from the memorandum of revision, in this regard is this:- "The court below ought to have seen that the defendant has not paid proper court fee on the alleged counter claim". The above argument therefore is rejected. 5. Coming to the second point "exclusion of counter claim" highlighted in R.60 of O.8: The rule reads:- "6C. Exclusion of counter claim. The above argument therefore is rejected. 5. Coming to the second point "exclusion of counter claim" highlighted in R.60 of O.8: The rule reads:- "6C. Exclusion of counter claim. Where a defendant sets up a counter claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter claim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit." In order to maintain this plea, the plaintiff shall satisfy the following requirements: (1) the plaintiff shall file an application to the court for an order that such counter claim may be excluded, and (2) such an application shall be filed at any time before the issues in relation to the counter claim are settled. 6. If the court, on the hearing of such an application, ie. an application which satisfies the above requirements, is of the view that the counter claim can be the subject matter of an independent suit, the court is competent to pass such orders as it thinks fit, excluding the counter claim from the purview of the suit. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that he ha d filed an application for an order that the counter claim requires to be excluded from the purview of the suit before the issues in relation to the counter claim were settled. The learned counsel for the plaintiff however, argues that the statements of the plaintiff in the replication in this regard ought to have been treated by the court below, as an application within the meaning of R.6C of O.8 and passed appropriate orders. The plain language employed in the Rule does not warrant such an inference. The argument of the learned counsel in this regard therefore is rejected. The C.R.P. for the reasons stated above is dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.