JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Second appeal is by the defendant. He was the Manager employed by the respondent in his proprietary concern. He had no salary. Terms of employment were covered by Ext. A1 agreement. He could draw amounts for travelling and incidental expenses, for which he had to render accounts. In addition, he was entitled to get share of profits also. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 3,805.00 as amount drawn but not accounted. While denying liability, the appellant made a counter claim of Rs. 8,000.00, for which he paid court fee. The suit was decreed. But the counter claim was left open without decision on the ground that it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff. Appeal was also dismissed. Both the courts below took the stand that his remedy, so far as the counter claim is concerned, is only by way of a fresh suit, which may now be barred by limitation. The contention that the counter claim exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction had to be returned for presentation before the competent court was met by the appellate Judge by saying that even if it was returned, it could have been filed only as a counter claim in a pending suit. 2. I think that both the courts below were not correct in what they did. The effect of the proviso to O.8 R.6A(1) is that a counter claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. Plaintiff denied the counter claim and contended that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Still the Munsiff did not return it for presentation before the proper court. It is true that no application was filed by the plaintiff under R.6C for exclusion of the counter claim to be disposed of in an independent suit. But that fact does not relieve the duty of the court to return the counter claim, which is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. Otherwise a party may suffer on account of the inaction of the court by getting his claim barred by limitation. 3. Even though the counter claim is raised in the written statement, it shall have the same effect as the plaint in a cross suit and in the suit, the court is bound to dispose of the original claim and the counter claim. 3. Even though the counter claim is raised in the written statement, it shall have the same effect as the plaint in a cross suit and in the suit, the court is bound to dispose of the original claim and the counter claim. Plaintiff can file a written statement in answer to the counter claim, which is governed by the rules relating to written statements. The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. That means, for all legal and procedural purposes, the counter claim shall be treated as an independent suit. The provisions of O.7 R.10 and 10A applicable to plaints are applicable to the counter claim contained in the written statement also as O.8 R.6A(4) clearly indicates. When the counter claim is found to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, it has not only the right, but the duty also to return the counter claim for presentation before the competent court, for which it can fix a date also. That may be necessary in the interest of justice. When a party files such a claim ignorantly or inadvertently, the court has a duty to correct him or direct him. The court, which is not competent to entertain the claim, cannot retain it indefinitely till the suit is disposed of and then direct that he will have to go in for a fresh suit. The question whether he may be able to get limitation saved by resort to S.14 of the Limitation Act is a different thing and it is not as of right, but only on proof of certain conditions. The result is unnecessary harassment and prejudice. Act of court should not prejudice anybody. 4. Even when the counter claim is entertainable by the court, it is having the right and duty, in appropriate cases, to direct the counter claim to be tried as an independent suit if it ought not to be disposed of as a counter claim. So also, even if the suit is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter claim will survive and it will have to be proceeded with and decided as an independent proceeding. So also, even if the suit is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter claim will survive and it will have to be proceeded with and decided as an independent proceeding. There is no merit in the stand taken by the Appellate Judge that a claim put forward as a counter claim in the written statement could be re - presented only as a counter claim in another suit and for that reason, the question of returning a counter claim for presentation before a competent court will not arise. Such a stand is not only wrong, but it will result in an absurd position also. If that be the position, the defendant will have to wait for an indefinite or sometimes impossible contingency of the plaintiff filing another suit against him in a competent court to enable the counter claim to be raised. The Appellate Judge assumes that once a counter claim is raised, it must always be only a counter claim. Any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff, either before or after filing of the suit, but before the defence is delivered or time limited for delivering defence has expired, could be put forward as a counter claim in the written statement in addition to any other defence or set off. That claim or right is not only available by way of defence, but by way of offence in an independent suit also. If the counter claim is returned for want of jurisdiction or otherwise, it can be filed as an independent suit. That is clear from O.8 R.6C also. 5. The result is that the appellant did not get an opportunity of his claim being considered. When the matter was pending before the Appellate Judge, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff was enhanced and the counter claim became entertainable by that court. Even then, the Appellate Judge did not remand the case, but said: "Hence the lower court was perfectly correct in ignoring the counter claim". Counter claim is not to be ignored like that: The defendant must be given an opportunity to have it considered. Otherwise the result is failure of justice. At the same time, I do not agree with the appellant in his argument based on the decision in Nani Kanjukrishnan v. Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai ( 1958 KLT 645 : AIR 1959 Kerala 38). Otherwise the result is failure of justice. At the same time, I do not agree with the appellant in his argument based on the decision in Nani Kanjukrishnan v. Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai ( 1958 KLT 645 : AIR 1959 Kerala 38). Court can take into account subsequent events, including rights accrued under subsequent legislations also, in moulding the reliefs. But jurisdiction conferred on the court after disposal of the suit and a subsequent statutory right dealt with in that decision cannot be equated. That case was dealing with benefits accrued to the defendant under the Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, which was enacted while the appeal was pending. So also, there is no force in the argument, based on the decisions in Ussain v. Muhammed ( 1987 (1) KLT 561 ) and Mohammed Farooq v. State ( 1984 KLT 346 ) that the value of the suit must include the value of the counter claim also in deciding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Those decisions only said that when an appeal is against the decision in the suit and counter claim, the value, for the purpose of the appeal, will be treated as the combined value of the suit and counter claim. Otherwise, it will lead to absurd results and a counter claim could oust the otherwise existing jurisdiction. For the purpose of jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the plaint claim and counter claim will have to be treated as independent proceedings and not as a combined proceeding. A Munsiff, having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs. 15,000/-, can entertain a suit of that value as well as a counter claim upto that amount in that suit. His jurisdiction cannot be ousted on the ground that the plaint claim and the counter claim together will be valued at Rs. 30,000/-. 6. A court cannot keep on its file a claim which it is not having jurisdiction to entertain. Both the courts below went wrong in that respect. Respondent did not produce his accounts, which are necessary for disposing of the plaint claim and the counter claim. Now, the Munsiff has become entitled to entertain the counter claim also. In such a situation, return of the counter claim to file a fresh suit is not necessary and it may lead to prejudice also. Respondent did not produce his accounts, which are necessary for disposing of the plaint claim and the counter claim. Now, the Munsiff has become entitled to entertain the counter claim also. In such a situation, return of the counter claim to file a fresh suit is not necessary and it may lead to prejudice also. The proper course, therefore, will be a remand for decision of the plaint claim and counter claim on the merits. Second appeal is allowed. The decrees and judgments of the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the Trial Court for decision of the plaint claim and counter claim afresh on the merits, according to law, after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence. Office will transmit the records to the Trial Court forthwith and the parties will appear before the Trial Court on 20-12-1990. No costs. Court fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal will be refunded to the appellant. The Trial Court will see that the case is disposed of within six months of receipt of records.