ORDER 1. With consent, finally heard. 2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 4.1.2012, whereby the counter claim of petitioner was returned to him under Order 7 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 3. Shri Bharadwaj took a preliminary objection that the said order is appealable under Order 43 rule 1(a) CPC. Parties are heard on this aspect. Order 43 rule 1(a) reads as under :- “1. Appeal from orders.-- An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely :- (a) an order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed].” 4. It is profitable to quote Order 8 rule 6A, CPC, which reads as under :- “6A. Counter-claim by defendant – (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Clause (4) of Order 8 rule 6A in no uncertain terms makes it clear that counter claim can also be treated as a plaint. 6. Shri N.K.Gupta, learned senior counsel contended that Order 43 rule 1(a) CPC must be confined to plaints only and it cannot be stretched to cover counter claim. 7. I have heard the parties at length. 8. 6. Shri N.K.Gupta, learned senior counsel contended that Order 43 rule 1(a) CPC must be confined to plaints only and it cannot be stretched to cover counter claim. 7. I have heard the parties at length. 8. Sub-clause (4) of Order 8 rule 6A CPC makes it clear that counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaints. As per test and in the context in which the words are employed in said sub-clause (4), it is clear that the provision is mandatory and counterclaim can be treated as a plaint. Thus, I am unable to hold that impugned order is not appealable under Order 43 rule 1(a). 9. Apart from this, rule 10A of Order 7 CPC makes it clear that there are various formalities which are required to be done by the Court while invoking power under said rule 10A. There is no material on record to show that Order 7 rule 10A has been completely followed. Resultantly, the impugned order is appealable. 10. Shri N.K.Gupta contended that in view of 1994(1) MPWN 116 (Ramdulari (Smt.) v. Virendra Singh), this petition may be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. 11. In my view, when an efficacious remedy is available, this petition should not be entertained. 12. At this stage, Shri Gupta contends that he be given permission to convert this writ petition into a miscellaneous appeal (MA). 13. Shri Bharadwaj has not opposed the said prayer. 14. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application for conversion within seven days. If such application is filed, this writ petition shall stand converted into a miscellaneous appeal. The petitioner shall also fulfil other necessary formalities (if any). On filing such application, the Registry shall convert this writ petition as miscellaneous appeal. 15. Writ petition is disposed of.