JUDGMENT : K.P. Singh, J. This First Appeal From Order u/s 6-A of the Court Fees Act has been preferred by the Defendants against the order of VIth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 1-4-1987 whereby the realisation of deficient court fee from the Defendants has been ordered. 2. The Plaintiff-Respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,714-28 P. with costs and interest as is evident from the plaint attached with the memo of appeal. The Defendants-Appellants have contested the claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent and have asserted that they are entitled to reimbursement of Rs. 3,10,000/- from the Plaintiff-Respondent on the ground mentioned in paragraph 13 of the written statement as is evident from the copy of the written statement attached with the memo of appeal. It has been alleged that the Defendant-Appellants are claiming a sum of Rs. 8285-70 P. only after adjusting the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, according to the Appellants they could not be called upon to pay court fee on the whole amount claimed by them by way of damages from the Plaintiff. It has been stressed that only on excess amount claimed by the Defendants from the Plaintiff the Defendants are liable to pay court fee which has been paid. 3. The trial court framed a necessary issue regarding the court fee payable by the Defendants in the facts and circumstances of the case and has decided the issue against the Defendants as is evident from the order dated 1-4-1987 attached with the memo of appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court the Defendants have preferred the above-noted First Appeal From. Order. 4. Before us the learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that in view of the allegations in the plaint and the written statement it is evident that the Defendants-Appellants have claimed only adjustment of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff and they have claimed excess amount over which they have paid court fee, therefore, the impugned order demanding deficient court fee from the Appellants is bad in law and it should be set aside. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has invited our attention to a ruling reported in New Victory Mills Co. Ltd. v. Madras Co. AIR 1966 All. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has invited our attention to a ruling reported in New Victory Mills Co. Ltd. v. Madras Co. AIR 1966 All. 619 and has emphasised before us that the facts involved in the aforesaid ruling are similar to the facts involved in the present case under consideration, therefore, the plea of adjustment raised by the Appellants should have been accepted by the Trial Court. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the aforesaid ruling have been emphasised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. 5. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants. According to him the Defendants-Appellants have not pleaded any payment rather they have claimed specific amount by way of damages as is evident from the plea raised in paragraph 13 of the written statement therefore, it is a case of adjustment rather it is a case of plea of set off or counter claim. Therefore, he has justified the impugned order and has submitted that no exception can be taken to it. 6. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent has invited our attention to paragraph 11 of the aforesaid ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and he has emphasised that according to the rulings of this Court as well as the rulings of other High Courts it; is well settled that the Defendants Appellants will have to pay the court fee as directed by the trial court in the impugned judgment. The rulings referred to by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondents are Chakkhan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, , AIR 1940 117 (Nagpur) , Ratan Lal Vs. Madari and Another, and Durga Prasad Vs. Swami Avidya Nand Guru Swami Hamarata Nand, and it has been emphasised that the claim made by the Defendants-Appellants is for damages which is entirely different from the plea of adjustment. Therefore, no exception should be taken to the impugned judgment of the Trial court. 7. In rejoinder the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants has invited our attention to the rulings reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raja Balbhadra Singh, AIR 1964 MP 231 , S. Sathiapal v. The Pandiyan Brick Works AIR 1974 Mad. 53 and Munshi Ram and Others Vs. Radha Kishan (decd.) and Others, AIR 1975 P&H 112 . 8. 7. In rejoinder the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants has invited our attention to the rulings reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raja Balbhadra Singh, AIR 1964 MP 231 , S. Sathiapal v. The Pandiyan Brick Works AIR 1974 Mad. 53 and Munshi Ram and Others Vs. Radha Kishan (decd.) and Others, AIR 1975 P&H 112 . 8. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and we have gone through the rulings cited at the bar. We are of the opinion that this appeal has no legs to stand. The controversy raised by the Defendant-Appellants before us is fully covered by the earlier rulings of this Court and we agree with the dictum of law laid down therein Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the rulings of the other High Courts referred to by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. 9. In Chakkhan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1923 All 118, a Division Bench of this Court has indicated that the Defendants must pay ad valorem court fee on the full amount of damages claimed in the written statement and not merely on excess over the plaint claim. On the allegation in the written statement vide paragraph 13 we think that the claim of the Defendants is by way of damages. Therefore, the Trial court was fully justified in directing the Defendants to pay ad valorem court; fee on the full amount of the damages claimed. We fully agree with the reasonings given in this ruling and we are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants. 10. A learned Single Judge of Nagpur High Court in AIR 1940 177 (Nagpur) , has followed the ruling reported in Chakkhan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1923 All 118, and has laid down that the fee must be paid on full amount of set off and not only on the amount claimed in excess. 11. In Ratan Lal Vs. Madari and Another, AIR 1950 All 237 , a Division Bench of this Court has indicated that on a plea of set off counter claim the Defendants will be required to pay the court fee on the total amount claimed by way of set off or counter claim and not only with reference to the difference between such amount and the amount claimed in the plaint. 12. In Durga Prasad Vs. 12. In Durga Prasad Vs. Swami Avidya Nand Guru Swami Hamarata Nand, AIR 1958 All 574 , a learned Single Judge of this Court following the ruling reported in Ratan Lal Vs. Madari and Another, (Supra), has indicated that the cause of action for the claim of damages being entirely different it was a clear case of set off and not of adjustment or payment. Therefore, the Defendants must pay ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed. 13. In view of the rulings of this Court we do not think that the contention raised on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants has any force. The sole argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant before us was that the Defendants-Appellants should be asked to pay the court fee only on the excess amount claimed, but as we have indicated above the authorities of this Court are contrary to the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view to the views expressed consistently by this Court since more than 60 years. 14. In the result we find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.