JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has moved this transfer petition for transfer of Civil Original Suit No. 2/2004 - Mahesh Chand v. Municipal Board, Banswara pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara. This transfer petition requires serious consideration because of the peculiar facts of this case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a Civil Original Suit No. 71/2002 for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara on 3.7.2002. The Municipal Board, Banswara, who was sole defendant in the suit submitted written statement on 17.7.2002. The defendant No. 2 who was subsequently added as a party in the suit, filed the written statement on 15.11.2002. The issues were framed by the Court on 10.1.2003. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 2.5.2003 and the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence. After two adjournments, the defendant examined one witness on 19.8.2003. The defendant did not produce any evidence and sought time and lastly on 3.9.2003 time was granted by the trial Court to the defendant on payment of cost of Rs. 50/-. Ultimately, on 11.9.2003, the defendant's evidence was closed. The case was fixed for final argument on 27.9.2003. The defendant moved an application on 10.10.2003 and prayed that the proceedings in the Civil Original Suit be stayed as defendant is proposing to challenge the order of the trial Court dated 11.9.2003 by which the defendant's evidence was closed by the trial Court by filing a revision petition before the High Court. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2003. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC, but ultimately that was not pressed. 4. After all these proceedings, at the time when the case was fixed for final arguments, the defendant-Municipal Board submitted an application under Order 8, Rule 6A CPC with counter-claim and court-fees of Rs. 10,600/ as valuation of the counter-claim is Rs. 2,11,000/-. 5. At this juncture it would be relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs suit is for mere injunction and the valuation of the plaintiffs suit for injunction is Rs. 400/- only and the plaintiff paid court-fees of Rs. 30/- only. 10,600/ as valuation of the counter-claim is Rs. 2,11,000/-. 5. At this juncture it would be relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs suit is for mere injunction and the valuation of the plaintiffs suit for injunction is Rs. 400/- only and the plaintiff paid court-fees of Rs. 30/- only. The suit was in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara which had jurisdiction to entertain the suit upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/-. 6. It appears that one another application under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC was also filed by the defendant-Municipal Board, Banswara. Both the applications; one application under Order 8, Rule 6A CPC and another application under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC were decided by the trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2003. A copy of the order dated 24.11.2003 is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-2. The trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2003 allowed the applications field under Order 8, Rule 6A CPC and under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC and in this way, the counter- claim filed by the defendant was taken on record and by the same order, it was returned to the defendant for presentation in the Court of District Judge, Banswara as the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the counter-claim. 7. Since after the order dated 24.11.2003 the plaintiffs suit remained in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) whereas the counter-claim was returned for presentation in the District Court, therefore, the defendant moved an application before the District Judge, Banswara and sought transfer of the plaintiff's Civil Original Suit No. 71/2002 from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara to the Court of District Judge, Banswara where the defendant's counter-claim was presented by the defendant. 8. The defendant's application u/s. 24 seeking transfer of the plaintiffs Civil Original Suit No. 71/2002 was allowed by the District Judge, Banswara vide order dated 27.1.2004 and Civil Original Suit No. 71/2002 of the plaintiff was withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara and was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara and counter-claim filed by the defendant is also transferred to the same Court i.e. Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara. 9. 9. The petitioner in the background of these facts, has moved an application u/s. 24 CPC before this Court and prayed that the petitioner's suit, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 2/2004 in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara may again be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the trial Court and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara committed serious error of law in taking on record the counter-claim filed by the defendant and further committed illegality in returning the counter-claim by the same order for presentation in the Court of District Judge, Banswara. It is also submitted that the learned District Judge, Banswara also committed illegality in passing the order dated 27.1.2004 by which the learned District Judge, Banswara allowed the transfer application filed by the defendant u/s. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 11. . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Municipal Board, Banswara vehemently submitted that the order of the trial Court dated 24.11.2003 attained the finality as this order has not been challenged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot challenge this order in this transfer petition filed u/s. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also submitted that when the defendant's counter-claim has already been taken on record by the order of the Court and since, it is lying in the Court of higher peculiar jurisdiction, therefore, in the interest of justice and looking to the nature of the dispute between the parties, the learned District Judge vide order dated 27.1.2004 transferred the . plaintiffs suit so that there may not be any conflicting judgment and decree with respect to the same parties and between the same parties. 12. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 13. Sum and substance of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiffs suit has valuation of Rs. 400/- and was filed in the competent Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- only. The defendant filed the counter-claim of valuation of Rs. 13. Sum and substance of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiffs suit has valuation of Rs. 400/- and was filed in the competent Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- only. The defendant filed the counter-claim of valuation of Rs. 2,11,000/-, which was not permissible as per the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 6-A of O. 8 CPC and that to when case was fixed for final arguments, which was also not permissible under sub-rule (1) of R. 6-A of O. 8 CPC. The Order 8, Rule 6A CPC is as under : "6-A. Counter-claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off u/R. 5, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any 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." 14. Emphasis of learned counsel is more on the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1087 held as under : "The limitation was that the counter-claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the written statement before the defendant filed his written statement or before the time limit for delivering the written statement has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. Further limitation was that the counter- claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, by laying the counter-claim pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court cannot claim pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be divested (sic delivered) and the power to try the suit already entered cannot be taken away by accepting the counter-claim beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction." 15. Be that as it may be, the fact remained is that the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara passed the order dated 24.11.2003, the Court which has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit of the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- only and the said Court taken on record the counter-claim of the valuation of Rs. 2,11,000/- and the trial Court, by the same order returned the counter-claim alone to the defendant for presentation in proper Court separating the counter- claim from the suit. 16. It appears that the defendant was fully conscious of these facts, therefore, moved an application before the District Court, Banswara u/s. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and sought relief of transfer of the Civil Original Suit in which not only evidence of both the parties were completed but the case was pending for final arguments so that the defendant may save his counter-claim by taking help of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and may get a de-novo trial in a completed suit. It appears from the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the District Judge, Banswara, that since there is an order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara for taking on record the counter claim and returning it under Order 7, Rule 10A CPC and it is an order, which has not been challenged, therefore, there is no justification for keeping two proceedings pending in two different Courts. On these reasonings, the learned District Judge, Banswara transferred Civil Original Suit No. 71/2002 to the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara. 17. So far as all objections with respect to the maintainability of the counter-claim are concerned, they are yet to be seen by the Court in which the counter-claim ultimately reached by the order of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara dated 24.11.2003 in the light of the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6A CPC and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. If there is validly filed counter-claim then also the plaintiff gets a right to file reply to the counter-claim raising all his defences. The plaintiff in such a situation can also move an appropriate application raising his objections before the Court where the counter-claim has been presented to show that the counter-claim could not have been taken on record in pursuance of the order of the Court which had no jurisdiction to pass the order. 18. Since, this is a transfer petition seeking transfer of the case only and this Court possesses power of supervising the subordinate Courts, therefore, this Court called for the record of the Civil Original Suit filed by the plaintiff as well as counter- claim filed by the defendant. In spite of all these facts, so far as transfer of plaintiffs case to a Court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the learned District Judge, Banswara dated 27.1.2004. However, it is made clear that the defendant will be at liberty to take his all defence about the maintainability of the counter-claim in the light of the relevant provisions of law. 19. Since, this Court is not inclined to transfer Civil Original Suit No. 2/2004 to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banswara, therefore, the transfer petition is dismissed with the observation that the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Banswara may decide the objections of the plaintiff about the maintainability of the counter-claim. The records of the trial Court be sent forthwith to the trial Court.In view of the above, the transfer petition of the petitioner is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******