L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise under identical circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. ( 2 ) THROUGH orders, dated 10-2-2004, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, returned O. S. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2002. C. M. A. No. 1514 of 2004 is filed against the order passed in O. S. No. 16 of 2002, and c. M. A. No. 1515 of 2004 is filed against the order in O. S. No. 17 of 2002. ( 3 ) APPELLANTS in both the appeals are contractors with the Government of A. P. , in the Irrigation Department. They were awarded certain civil contracts. Disputes arose as regards the execution of the same. The respective respondents issued notices to the appellants for recovery of certain amounts. The appellants filed the suits for the relief of declaration, that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amounts from them. In O. S. No. 16 of 2002, the claim was rs. 6,01,963/-, and in O. S. No. 17 of 2002, it was Rs. 6,20,002-15 paise. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS filed written statements as well as counter-claims. In O. S. No. 16 of 2002, counter-claim was made for a sum of Rs. 6,25,54,051. 00 and in O. S. No. 17 of 2002, it was made for a sum of Rs. 10,59,89,834-15 paise. In both the suits, a preliminary issue, as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, was framed, being Issue No. 9. The Trial Court took up the same and held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suits, since the counter-claim exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. It accordingly returned the suits. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) THE orders under appeal disclose that the Trial Court has chosen an easy way to get rid of the suits, little realizing, that it has done exactly the reverse of what is ordained in Rule 6-A of Order 8 C. P. C. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The respondents filed a written statement and made a counter-claim running to a sum of about six crores, in each of the suits. The respondents filed a written statement and made a counter-claim running to a sum of about six crores, in each of the suits. Obviously, because, the respondents are government agencies, they were not required to pay the Court-Fee. That, however, is a different aspect. ( 8 ) A defendant in a suit is entitled to make counter-claim, or plead set of, depending on the circumstances. For all practical purposes, a counter-claim is to be treated as an independent claim, on par with a suit. It is for this reason, that the counterclaim is required to be restricted to the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial court. Proviso to Rule 6-A of Order 8 cpc, clearly mandates that the counterclaim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. "provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. " ( 9 ) THE purpose underlying Rule 6-A of Order 8 CPC, and in particular, the proviso, is not difficult to be discerned. The fact that the defendant has chosen to come forward with a counter-claim, basically discloses that, left to himself, he was not inclined to file a suit to recover the amount. The counter-claim is pleaded only as a pre-emptive action. Whatever be the justification for a defendant in not filing an independent suit, for recovery of the amount, sought through counter-claim, the fact remains that he has to bring the counter-claim within the parameters of a suit, to be tried by that Court itself. The facility of making a counter-claim would at the most obviate the necessity to file an independent suit. In all other respects, viz. , jurisdiction, Court Fee, Limitation etc. , it has to be treated as though it is a claim in an independent suit. ( 10 ) WHEN Rule 6-A C. P. C mandates that the counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the Court, in which the suit is pending, it was totally impermissible for the respondents herein to make any counter-claim in excess of the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. In other words, the Trial Court ought not to have accepted a counter-claim, over and above the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction. A basic illegality was committed by the Trial court, when it accepted the counter-claim made in excess of such limits. In other words, the Trial Court ought not to have accepted a counter-claim, over and above the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction. A basic illegality was committed by the Trial court, when it accepted the counter-claim made in excess of such limits. It proceeded to frame a preliminary issue on that aspect, and ultimately answered it. Instead of returning the written statement, the Trial court returned the plaint. There cannot be any better example of lopsided enforcement of the provisions of the C. P. C. than this. ( 11 ) THE orders under appeal are accordingly set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to require the respondents to restrict the counter-claim of the respondents to the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, and to proceed to try the suits, on merits. ( 12 ) THE civil miscellaneous appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.