JUDGMENT Honble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Mani and Sri R.S. Dixit, Advocates, appearing for the revisionist and Sri K. Ajit, Advocate, appearing for the caveator respondent. 2. The order dated 27-9-2005 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mainpuri in original suit No. 48 of 2002, Aashutosh Dixit v. Avinash Dixit is challenged. The original suit No. 48 of 2002 was instituted by Aashutosh Dixit respondent claiming relief of declaration of his right on the basis of a Will executed by late Sarla Dixit. The contesting defendant/revisionist is son of late Sarla Dixit, who was employed in State Bank of India at Mainpuri on the post of Accountant. She died on 1-4-2001 and the proceeding under Succession Act was initiated at the instance of the revisionist in respect of the Bank account and Locker. The claim of the plaintiff/respondent was on the basis of a Will, the revisionist and Smt. Aneeta Shukla Proforma defendant (opposite party No. 2) filed separate written statements, the revisionist has also filed counter-claim on 27-7-2002. After filing of the replication to the written statement and the counter-claim, another application was moved on 11-8-2005 by the plaintiff/respondent praying for a direction to the Bank Manager to pay the entire money deposited in the Bank. On 22-9-2004, the revisionist failed to appear in the Court and an order was passed rejecting counter-claim and the suit to proceed ex parte. Subsequently, the order dated 22-9-2004 was set aside by the Court below on 15-12-2004. Once again, on 5-8-2005, second order was passed to proceed ex parte on account of absence of the revisionist. On 15-9-2005, the suit was decreed ex parte. An application was filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 6-D, C.P.C. By means of separate application, he prayed for staying the execution of the ex parte decree. It has further been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the defendant/revisionist moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 15-9-2005. This application was filed within time. By means of the impugned order dated 27-9-2005, an application under Order 8 Rule 6-D, C.P.C. was rejected. This application was filed within time. By means of the impugned order dated 27-9-2005, an application under Order 8 Rule 6-D, C.P.C. was rejected. Counsel for the revisionist has emphasised on the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-D, C.P.C. which is quoted below : (6-D) Effect of discontinuance of suit—If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counter-claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued, or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with." 3. Rule 6-D provides that in the event, the suit is stayed, discontinued, or dismissed, counter-claim shall nevertheless be decided. Sri K.K. Mani, Advocate, appearing for the revisionist has emphatically argued that since the counter-claim was already on record but without taking into consideration the counter-claim, the Court has decreed the suit. It is, therefore, emphasized that the Court is liable to proceed to decide counter-claim under Rule 6-D of Order 8, C.P.C. Sri K. Ajit, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff has filed short counter-affidavit. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that previously when the order to proceed ex parte was recalled on 15-12-2004, once again the defendant failed to appear in the Court and, therefore, second order to proceed ex parte was passed on 5-8-2005. An application was filed on 16-8-2005 at the behest of the revisionist to set aside the order dated 5-8-2005 (this was second order to proceed ex parte) and the said application was rejected on 31-8-2005. Subsequently, another Counsel was engaged, who filed power of attorney with an adjournment application, which was numbered as paper No. 74-D. This application was also rejected as not maintainable on the same day. The Court fixed 9-9-2005 for hearing and judgment. The revisionist did not challenge the order dated 31-8-2005 and, therefore, contention that the judgment in the suit was ex parte, is absolutely wrong and this fact was deliberately concealed by the revisionist. It is true that there is no mention of rejection of the application dated 16-8-2005 on 31-8-2005 in the affidavit filed by the revisionist. However, assuming the judgment has been given in the suit ex parte, there is already an application to recall the said judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. pending before the Court concerned. 4. Emphasis is on the provision of Rule 6-D of Order 8, C.P.C. I have carefully considered the provision. However, assuming the judgment has been given in the suit ex parte, there is already an application to recall the said judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. pending before the Court concerned. 4. Emphasis is on the provision of Rule 6-D of Order 8, C.P.C. I have carefully considered the provision. The Code provides only three contingencies whether the counter-claim is liable to be decided, despite the suit is dismissed, discontinued or stayed. In case, counter-claim was kept alive even after the suit was decreed ex parte, it would have clearly been mentioned as fourth circumstances in Rule 6-D. The absence of the words ‘in case the suit is decreed, counter-claim should be decided’ makes it clear that intention of the statute was not to keep the counter-claim alive, once the suit was decreed. It is obvious that in case, counter-claim is filed by the defendant, and the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed, in that case, intention of the Code is to adjudicate claim of the defendant, which will not come to an end on dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff and, therefore, the word “dismissed” has been included in Rule 6-D of Order 8, C.P.C. It is very clear that since the suit is decreed, meaning thereby claim of the plaintiff is accepted, in that event counter-claim of the defendant has necessarily to be rejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Rule 6-D will not be attracted in the present case, since the suit was decreed. No doubt, it is an ex parte decree but nonetheless the suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, counter-claim under Rule 6-D of Order 8, C.P.C. was rightly rejected by the Court below. There is no merit in the revision and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Before parting with the case, in the interest of justice, I direct the Court concerned to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Revision Dismissed. ————