JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the appeal is being finally disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The short question involved in the second appeal is as to whether in a case where the defendant prefers a counter claim and his counter claim is allowed and the suit is dismissed, the aggrieved party will have to file two separate appeals or filing of only one appeal would be sufficient. 3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad. The plaintiff-appellant had impleaded two defendants in the original suit, one is the respondent who is sole respondent here and the other was Ram Udar Das who died after filing of the written statement. During the pendency of the suit the present respondent filed a counter claim for the relief of cancellation of the registered document dated 9.2.1999 executed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant no. 2. The learned trial court by the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2007 dismissed the suit for permanent injunction but allowed the counter claim cancelling the said registered documents dated 9.2.1999 executed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant no. 2. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the plaintiff/appellant no. 2 preferred a Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007 challenging the impugned judgment and decree by which his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed and counter claim of the respondent was allowed. The learned appellate court without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal on technical ground that against the impugned judgment and decree the plaintiff/appellant no. 2 should have filed two separate appeals one against the cancellation of suit of permanent injunction and the other against which the counter claim was allowed. It was also found that the plaintiff/appellant filed the appeal against the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction did not file the appeal against the judgment by which counter claim was allowed and has not paid court fees in respect of the appeal, if any, filed against the decree of counter claim. 5. Before entering into the aforesaid controversy it will be appropriate to examine the provision with regard to filing of counter claim by the defendant. 5. Before entering into the aforesaid controversy it will be appropriate to examine the provision with regard to filing of counter claim by the defendant. Order 8 Rule6-A CPC gives a right to the defendant either to claim a set-off or 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 fixed for delivering his defence has expired. There is also a restriction that the counter claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. It further provides that the counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit and the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant. 6. Order 20 Rule 19 CPC provides that where the defendant has been allowed a set off or counter claim, against the claim of plaintiff, the decree shall state what amount is due to the plaintiff and what amount is due to the defendant. 7. Thus from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the defendant also has a right to set up a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff and the said counter claim shall have the same effect as of a suit. However, the counter claim filed by the defendant is treated as a cross suit but no separate case number is allotted to the counter claim. When the court gives final verdict, only one judgment is pronounced and only one decree is drawn. The provision of Order 41 no-where require the filing of two separate appeals in respect of the same judgment and decree. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that a copy of the memo of the appeal has also been filed with the second appeal and a perusal thereof would reveal that the plaintiff/appellants had challenged the dismissal of their suit and the decree of the counter claim as well but the learned first appellate court fell into grave error of law in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant had not preferred any appeal against the decree of counter claim passed in favour of the respondents. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned first appellate court has examined the controversy in detailed and has recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff/appellant did not prefer any appeal against the decree by which the counter claim was allowed and as such the judgment and decree passed in respect of the counter claim became final and binding upon the parties. He further submits that in case the appeal against the dismissal of suit for injunction is heard and decided, the possibility regarding the contradictory finding would always be there and therefore the learned first appellate court has rightly held that the appeal against the a part of the judgment and decree was not maintainable. 9. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon several judgments reported in : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3760, 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 146 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1645 : AIR 1983 Madras 131 and AIR 2002 Gujarat 166. In all the aforesaid cases relied upon by the respondents it has been held that in the cases of connected suits finding of the court in one suit becomes final in absence of appeal against another suit, the appeal filed against only one suit would be barred by the principle of res judicata. 10. The case law relied upon by the respondents are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case because the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other Hon'ble High Courts have laid down the aforesaid principle in the cases where two separate suits were consolidated and were decided by a common judgment and decree. The facts of present case are entirely different. There were not two connected suits which have been consolidated by the learned trial court but it was the counter claim set up by the respondent which has been decided along with the claim of the plaintiff/appellants. Thus there was only one judgment and single decree against which the appeal was filed by the plaintiff/appellants. 11. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff/appellants ought to have filed two separate appeals. Thus there was only one judgment and single decree against which the appeal was filed by the plaintiff/appellants. 11. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff/appellants ought to have filed two separate appeals. However, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff/appellants ought to have paid the court fees and ought to have valued the appeal in accordance with the decree drawn up by the trial court. So far as the payment of court fee with regard to the appeal filed against the decree of counter claim is concerned, the appellate court in stead of dismissing the appeal ought to have given an opportunity to the plaintiff/appellants to suitably amend the memo of appeal and pay the required court fee. The learned first appellate court instead of requiring the plaintiff/appellants to remove the defects, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff/appellants did not file any appeal against the decree by which the counter claim was allowed while the facts are otherwise. A perusal of the memo of appeal would reflect that the plaintiff/appellants had sought relief in respect of counter claim also. 12. The principle of res-judicata as contained under Section 11 CPC does not apply to the facts of the present case because there was only one suit in which the counter claim was preferred by the defendant/respondent and it was not a case where two different suits had been consolidated and decided by a common judgment and decree. In such a case two different appeals are certainly required but in a case like the present one where the defendant/respondent had preferred counter claim and the plaintiff's suit was decided along with the counter claim, there was absolutely no requirement to file two different appeals. Thus the learned first appellate court has wrongly gone into question of principle of res judicata. 13. In the result, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned first appellate court suffers from error of law and is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court passed in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007 is hereby set aside. 14. In the result Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court passed in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007 is hereby set aside. The learned first appellate court is directed to register the Civil Appeal on its original number and after payment of requisite court fee by the plaintiff/appellants on the appeal filed against the decree of counter claim shall proceed to hear the same and decide according to the law at the earliest.