Judgment :- S.S. Satheesachandran, J. The above Original Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs : i. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 order and quash the same. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in a suit, pending on the file of Munsiff Court, Thrissur. That suit was filed by the first and second respondents as plaintiffs, seeking a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to public and the defendants have no right to alienate such properties, and for other consequential reliefs. Petitioner resisting the suit in his written statement raised a counter claim contending that the plaint properties belong to a Trust and the suit has been filed collusively with the defendants 2 to 4. A decree for declaration that the plaint properties belong to a Trust and also that defendants 2 to 4 have no right over the Trust was sought by the petitioner raising a counter claim in his written statement. Valuation of the counter claim was shown at Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only), exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsiff Court. Petitioner, later, filed an application to amend the valuation of counter claim, for payment of fixed court fee in terms of Section 28 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959. Maintainability of the counter claim being challenged by plaintiffs and other defendants, learned Munsiff considered that question preliminarily and passed Ext.P5 order rejecting the counter claim as not maintainable. Amendment requested to correct the valuation of counter claim was rejected under Ext.P6 order. Against Ext.P5 order rejecting the counter claim, petitioner preferred an appeal, and, learned First Additional District Court, Thrissur by Ext.P7 judgment dismissed that appeal. The above Original Petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the Munsiff by which the counter claim and also amendment applications were dismissed and Ext.P7 judgment by the learned District Judge, affirming Ext.P5 order of the Munsiff. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The above Original Petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the Munsiff by which the counter claim and also amendment applications were dismissed and Ext.P7 judgment by the learned District Judge, affirming Ext.P5 order of the Munsiff. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Being queried whether a regular appeal against an order rejecting a counter claim is entertainable and provided by Code, learned counsel for petitioner contended that order rejecting the counter claim is similar to an order rejecting a plaint and as such an appeal will lie. I cannot agree. Rules 6A to 6G of Order VIII of Code deal with counter claim and its entertainability in a suit filed by another. Sub rule 4 of Rule 6A provides that a counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. A counter claim has no independent status but as a claim raised in a written statement filed by a defendant in the suit. Only where a counter claim is entertained by the court the question raised for considering it as a plaint and, then, being governed by the rules applicable to plaint would arise. A counter claim entertained alone can have the effect of cross-suit enabling the court to pronounce a judgment thereof. The fact that a defendant has raised a counter claim in his written statement and that was rejected by the court for one reason or other as not entertainable would not enable that defendant to contend that the order of such rejection is amenable to a challenge treating such order as a decree. The question of treating a counter claim as a plaint would arise only if it is entertained and not otherwise. If that be not so, any defendant raising a counter claim on its rejection by court can continue the litigation filing vexatious appeals on the premise that the order rejecting the counter claim has to be treated as a decree and he has a substantive right to prefer an appeal against such order of rejection. That is not the purport of the provisions covered by the rules governing the counter claim. If a counter claim is entertained by the court then, of course, it has the same effect as that of a plaint, requiring adjudication by the court and passing of a judgment thereof. That is not the purport of the provisions covered by the rules governing the counter claim. If a counter claim is entertained by the court then, of course, it has the same effect as that of a plaint, requiring adjudication by the court and passing of a judgment thereof. So much so, the appeal preferred by petitioner against Ext.P5 order of the Munsiff, rejecting the counter claim of petitioner has no legal basis, and, in fact, it was not entertainable treating such order as a decree. 4. The question is whether the counter claim raised by petitioner irrespective of correction sought over its valuation should have been entertained by the court. Suit filed in 1997 is still pending for adjudication before the Munsiff, in view of the appeal and further proceedings taken against Ext.P5 order by petitioner. By the rejection of counter claim raised by petitioner, his substantive rights are not in any way affected as he could very well file a separate suit to establish the claim set up in his written statement. None of the defendants can insist that his counter claim has to be entertained and adjudicated by the court in the suit filed by another; the court has a discretion whether or not to entertain such counter claim, even assuming that it has some bearing or nexus with the relief canvassed by the plaintiff. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented in the case and also the non-maintainability of the appeal preferred by petitioner against the order rejecting his counter claim, I find no interference with Ext.P5 order is called for. But I make it clear that it is open to petitioner/ first defendant in the suit to have recourse to appropriate remedies as provided by law to establish the claim raised as counter claim in the written statement. Without prejudice to his right to do so, if so entitled under law, the Original Petition is dismissed. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the time lag after its institution.