ORDER C.K. Prasad, J 1. This is plaintiffs appeal under section 100 C.P.C. Second Addition District Judge, Raipur by judgment and decree dated 20.3.1976 passed in Civil Suit No. 1 A of 1971 decreed the plaintiffs' suit and held that they are the owners of house no. 25/5-1, 2 and plot bearing no. 25/5-1, 3 in Kankajipada Ward in the district of Raipur and the defendant was restrained from ejecting them or their tenants. The defendant's counter claim for possession of the same property and mesne profits was dismissed. Aggrieved by same defendant preferred First Appeal No. 129 of 1976 and this Court by its judgment and decree dated 9.8.1980 allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Decree in relation to dismissal of the counter claim of the defendant for possession of the property and mesne profits, was set aside and the matter remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the counter claim. It is common ground that plaintiffs thereafter filed Civil Appeal No. 6136 of 1983 before the Supreme Court but the same has been dismissed. 2. After the remand, the counter claim of the defendant was heard and decided by First Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur and by judgment and decree dated 7.3.1996, it decreed the counter claim. The plaintiffs appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree has been dismissed by the Distrcit Judge, Raipur by Judgment and decree dated 6.1.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9-A of 1995. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 100 C.P.C. and by order dated 21.4.1997 the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law - Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are without jurisdiction as Civil Judge, Class I, had no jurisdiction to try the counter claim, in view of the judgment and decree of this Court, dated 19.8.1980, passed in First Appeal No. 129 of 1976 remanding the case for trial by the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur ? 3. It is relevant here to state that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in which the defendant laid his counter claim was tried by the Additional District Judge as during that period, according to the prescribed pecuniary limits, suit lay before the District Judge. 3. It is relevant here to state that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in which the defendant laid his counter claim was tried by the Additional District Judge as during that period, according to the prescribed pecuniary limits, suit lay before the District Judge. However, after remand, when the matter was pending before the Additional District Judge, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts was increased and the suit according to the revised prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction was to lie before Civil Judge. Accordingly the counter claim of the defendant was transferred to the Civil Judge, who as stated earlier granted the relief to the defendant, which has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 4. Shri Aradhe in support of the appeal submits that by judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 129 of 1976 the case was remanded to the trial Court and the trial Court being the Court of Addl. District Judge, notwithstanding the fact that during the pendency of the said trial, jurisdiction was conferred on the Civil Judge to hear suits of the valuation which was earlier within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, the counter claim ought not to have been transferred to the Civil Judge. He submits that as the main suit was decided by the Additional District Judge, counter claim in the suit would not have been decided by the Civil Judge. Accordingly he submits that the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge as also the lower appellate Court are completely without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Chourasia, however, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the plaintiff having not raised his objection before the trial Court as also lower appellate Court and having taken chance and invited the judgment, cannot be permitted to question the same in this appeal. It is common ground that at the time when the Civil Judge passed the order, it had pecuniary jurisdiction. Answer to the aforesaid submission shall depend upon the answer to the question as to what is a counter claim. 6. It is common ground that at the time when the Civil Judge passed the order, it had pecuniary jurisdiction. Answer to the aforesaid submission shall depend upon the answer to the question as to what is a counter claim. 6. In this context, it is apt to quote Order VIII, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure - 6-A. Counter claim by defendant - (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6, set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, and right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff 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: Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such 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. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. A plain reading of Order VIII, Rule 6-A (2) of the C.P.C. makes it clear that counter claim is a cross-suit so as to enable the court to pronounce final judgment both on the original claim and counter claim, Counter-claim in my opinion, is substantially cross action not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim. The court entertains it as a separate action. There is nothing in law which precludes a Court from treating a counter claim as palint in a cross-suit. The essence of a counter claim is that defendant has an independent cause of action in the nature of cross action and not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim. Pleading of the defendant in the counter claim is that defendant is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiffs are in occupation of the same. The essence of a counter claim is that defendant has an independent cause of action in the nature of cross action and not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim. Pleading of the defendant in the counter claim is that defendant is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiffs are in occupation of the same. Here the original claim was decided by the Additional District Judge whereas counter claim has been decided by the Civil Judge, which in the scheme of the law ought not to have been done by him. In the background aforesaid, I proceed to examine the submission of Shri Chourasia. He submits that the plaintiffs having not raised this objection before the two Courts below, it shall be deemed that they have waived the same. 7. Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides for objection to jurisdiction reads as follows - Objections to jurisdiction 21 (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken, in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opporunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. Section 21 (1) (2) of the Code prohibits raising of objection pertaining to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction before the Appellate Court or Revisional Court unless the objection was taken in the Court of first instance and at the earliest possible opporunity. Section 21 (1) (2) of the Code prohibits raising of objection pertaining to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction before the Appellate Court or Revisional Court unless the objection was taken in the Court of first instance and at the earliest possible opporunity. Here in the present case, the plaintiffs are not objecting to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction of the Court, but are contending that it had no competence to try the suit in view of the order of this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiffs cannot be shut to raise this point in this appeal. As held earlier, the counter claim ought to have been heard by a judge who had the jurisdiction to hear the suit. This had admittedly not been done. This exhibits lack of inherent jurisdiction. Natural consequence of the same is that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The matter has to be tried by the Judge or the successor before whom the matter was earlier remitted. 8. Learned counsels representing the parties undertake to appear before the Court who shall be in sesin of the matter on 8.9.1997 and no notice is required to be issued by the learned Judge for appearance of the parties. As the matter is pending since quarter of a century, I deem it expedient to direct the learned Judge to finally decide the matter within eight weeks from the date fixed for appearance. Let the registry send the records immediately. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the matter remitted back for decision in accordance with law. No cost. Appeal allowed