JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant/Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2005 dated 30.11.2007, vide which learned appellate court while allowing the appeal so filed before it by the present respondent, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff-Corporation and decreed the counter claim of defendant for recovery of Rs. 60,031/- with pending and future interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization along with costs. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that appellant/plaintiff-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-Corporation') filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 68,735/- on the ground that in the year 1997 tenders were invited for extraction of resin and its carriage up to the road side Depot, for Lot No. 30/97 which work was allotted to defendant, (Kahan Singh since deceased), vide agreement dated 20.3.1997. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that for the said work the target was fixed 126 quintal pure resin from 3140 blaze and the rate fixed was Rs. 600/- per quintal for extraction of resin and transportation of the same upto Roadside Depot. The total value of the work as per plaintiff-Corporation was Rs. 75,600/- and per section yield in the said lot was fixed at 40 quintal and all these aspects of the matter were made clear in the agreement itself. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that earnest money in the shape of FDR for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited and pledged in the name of plaintiff-Corporation for the said lot by the defendant. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that against the target of 126 quintals, the entire pure resin which could be extracted by the defendant was 86.980 quintals which was 39.020 quintals less than the fixed target which had caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,28,766/- to the plaintiff-Corporation on account of less extraction of resin. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that against the target of 126 quintals, the entire pure resin which could be extracted by the defendant was 86.980 quintals which was 39.020 quintals less than the fixed target which had caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,28,766/- to the plaintiff-Corporation on account of less extraction of resin. It was further mentioned in the plaint that defendant had raised objection that during the said period there was heavy rain as well as other unfavourable circumstances and after taking into consideration his plea, the higher authorities had granted relaxation of 12.600 quintal in favour of the defendant and after giving the said relaxation, the defendant was still liable to pay to the plaintiff-Corporation an amount of Rs. 68,735/- as per calculations given in the plaint along with interest @ 18% per annum and costs of the suit. 3. The claim of the plaintiff-Corporation was resisted by the defendant who stated that reduction of yield was not on account of his acts of omission and commission. It was mentioned in the written statement that in fact the yield which was fixed by the plaintiff-Corporation qua Lot No. 30/97 was arbitrarily fixed in proportion to the yield of previous years and that yield had been reduced due to heavy rain which in fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff-Corporation. As per defendant he extracted 86.980 quintals of resin and if the same was worked out on the basis of yield of previous years, the target so achieved was more than the target of the previous year. 4. Defendant simultaneously also filed counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 60,031/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from November, 1997 onwards. As per defendant he had extracted 86.980 quintal of pure resin, value of which was Rs. 52,188/- whereas he had only been paid Rs. 1568/- by the plaintiff-Corporation. Defendant thus prayed for recovery of the said amount as well as the earnest money which was deposited by him with costs and interest. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation is entitled to the suit amount, if so to what extent ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation is entitled to the suit amount, if so to what extent ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation has no enforceable cause of action ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation is time barred ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitle d to the amount of Rs. 60,031/- by way of counter claim ? OPD 7. Relief." 6. Learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the said issues :- "Issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 No. Issue No. 3 No. Issue No. 4 No. Issue No. 5 No. Issue No. 6 No. Relief : Suit is partly decreed with costs and counter claim dismissed as per operative part of judgment" 7. Accordingly, learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 1.6.2005 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation by holding the plaintiff-Corporation to be entitled to recover Rs. 27,155/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization from the defendant. However, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed by learned trial court. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before learned appellate court challenging the partial decree of the suit in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation as well as dismissal of his counter claim by learned trial court. The partial decree granted in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation and rejection of his counter claim was challenged by the defendant by way of a single appeal. In other words, no separate appeals were filed by defendant against the judgment and decree which was partly allowed in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation by learned trial court and against the judgment and decree vide which his counter claim was dismissed. 9. In appeal, learned appellate court while allowing the same, reversed the judgment and decree which was passed by learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation and also allowed the counter claim of the defendant to the tune of Rs. 9. In appeal, learned appellate court while allowing the same, reversed the judgment and decree which was passed by learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation and also allowed the counter claim of the defendant to the tune of Rs. 60,031/- against the plaintiff-Corporation with interest, which counter claim earlier stood dismissed by the learned trial court. Learned appellate court granted both these reliefs in favour of the defendant in the same appeal. 10. The said judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court has been assailed by the plaintiff-Corporation by way of this appeal which was admitted by this Court on 28.7.2008 on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the appellate court below have erred in law in concluding that the contract/agreement exhibit PW-5/A had become impossible and became void when it became impossible. Have not the appellate court below wrongly construed the provisions of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and have thereby wrongly applied the same in favour of the respondent/defendant. Had the contract become impossible and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the agreement had become impossible on record because of rain." 11. During the course of arguments this Court felt that another substantial question of law arose in the appeal i.e. :- "Whether learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that a single appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court vide which learned trial court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation for recovery of Rs. 27,155/- along with interest and costs and also dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60,031/- was not maintainable." 12. Both learned counsel for the parties were heard on this substantial question of law at length. 13. Mr. Bhupender Pathania, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court is not sustainable because learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that because learned trial court while partly allowing the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation-Corporation for recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,155/- along with interest and costs had also dismissed the counter claim so filed by the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60,031/-, in these circumstances the defendant could not have had filed one appeal against the partial allowing of the suit and against the rejection of his counter claim. 27,155/- along with interest and costs had also dismissed the counter claim so filed by the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60,031/-, in these circumstances the defendant could not have had filed one appeal against the partial allowing of the suit and against the rejection of his counter claim. According to Mr. Pathania, though both these adjudications were made by way of a single judgment and rightly so, however, the partial allowing of the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation as well as dismissal of the counter claim consist two decrees and they ought to have been separately assailed by the defendant before learned first appellate court by filing two appeals. In the absence of two appeals having been filed, as per Mr. Pathania, one appeal so filed by the defendant was not maintainable, as both the findings returned acted as 'res judicata' vis-a-vis each other which necessitated the filing of two appeals. According to Mr. Pathania in this view of the matter as the appeal filed before learned appellate court was not maintainable, learned appellate court erred in entertaining and adjudicating upon the appeal so filed by defendant and thereafter in allowing the same. 14. Mr. G.R. Palsra learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the defendant could not have had filed two appeals because learned trial court had allowed the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation partially and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant by way of same judgment and same decree. Mr. Palsra further submitted that it is not as if two judgments and decrees were passed by learned trial court. According to Mr. Palsra in these circumstances the only option available with the defendant was to prefer one appeal against one judgment and decree which was done by defendant before learned first appellate court and no illegality was committed by learned appellate court in entertaining the same and deciding the same vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2005. Mr. Palsra further argued that even in this Court appellate-Corporation had filed only one appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court vide which leaned appellate court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-Corporation had allowed the counter claim. On this analogy also it was urged by Mr. Palsra that there was no merit in the contention so raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 15. On this analogy also it was urged by Mr. Palsra that there was no merit in the contention so raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 16. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramagya Prasad Gupta and others v. Murli Prasad and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1320 has held :- "8. It is clear that where a suit has been tried and finally decided on the merits, if the defeated party wishes in another suit between the same parties relating to the same property to have the same questions re-agitated, he cannot be allowed to do so, because his cause of action has passed into a judgment, and the matter has become res judicata. Even where two appeals have been taken from the same judgment by two different parties to which all others are parties either as appellants or respondents and one of the appeals is dismissed either on merits or for any other reasons, it has been held by some of the High Courts, but we express no opinion thereon, that the other appeal has also to be dismissed, because it is barred by the principles of res judicata as otherwise there will be conflict in. the decrees. In the Lahore decision there were two cross suits about the same subject-matter filed simultaneously between the same parties and two decrees were prepared. An appeal being filed in respect of one decree and not in respect of the other, the question was whether the non-filing of the appeal against that decree creates an estoppel against the hearing of the other appeal. In Narhari's case (supra) what this Court held was, where there has been on trial, one finding and one decision, there need not be two appeals even though two decrees may have been drawn up and consequently the fact that one of the appeals was time barred does not bar the other appeal on the ground of res judicata. In this case, these questions need not be considered. Nor is it relevant to consider whether there is any conflict between the decision in this case and Sheodan Singh's case (supra). In this case, these questions need not be considered. Nor is it relevant to consider whether there is any conflict between the decision in this case and Sheodan Singh's case (supra). In Sheodan Singh's case two suits were field in the Court of the Civil Judge, one for a declaration of the title to the suit property and the second for other reliefs and consequently two other suits were filed by the respondents in the Munsif's court against the appellant claiming joint ownership to the suit property and other reliefs. The four suits were tried together by the Civil Judge. Some of the issues were common to all the suits and one of the commons issues relating to the title of the parties was found in favour of the respondent. The Civil Judge dismissed the appellant's title suit, decreed his other suit partly, and decreed the two suits of the respondent. The appellant filed appeals against the decree in each suit. The High Court dismissed the two appeals arising out of the respondent's suits, one as time barred, and the other for failure to apply for translation and printing of the record. As the title of the respondent to the suit property had become final on account of such dismissal, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the other two appeals also, as the main question involved therein was the same. The High Court agreed that the appeals were barred by res judicate and dismissed them. Against these order of dismissal, the appellant filed appeals to this Court and contended that - (1) title to the property was not directly and substantially it % issue in the respondent's suits (2) the Munsif's Court could not try the title suit filed by the appellant; (3) it could not be said that appeals arising out of the respondent's suits were former suits as such the bar of res judicata will be inapplicable; and (4) the two appeals which were dismissed-one on the ground of limitations and the other on the ground of not printing the records, could not be said to be heard and finally decided. This Court held that the High Court was right in dismissing the appeals as being barred by res indicate inasmuch as the issue as to the title was raised in respondent's suits and it was directly and substantially in issue in those suits also and did arise out of the pleadings of the parties, and further the High Court's decision in the two appeals arising from the respondent's appeals were undoubtedly earlier and, therefore, the condition that there should have been a decision in a former suit to give rise to res judicate in a subsequent suit was satisfied in that case. The decision in Narhari's case (supra) was distinguished by this Court in that case so that it could not be said that decision was in any way in conflict with the decision in Narhari's case (supra). In appeals arising out of a subsequent suit and an earlier suit where there were common issues, common subject-matter and common trial and the appeals arising out of the subsequent suit were dismissed, a question would arise as to whether the appeals from the earlier suit which were pending arc barred by res judicata A question may also arise where the subject-matter is the same and the issues are common in the two suits but some of the parties are different in one suit, whether the bar of res judicata would operate against the parties who are common. All these aspects need not be considered in these appeals because, in our view, the subject-matter of Title Suit No. 68 of 1954 and that of Title Suit No. 94 of 1956 are entirely direct. Even if the issues that are common in the two suits, and it has been admitted by the learned. Advocate for the appellants that some of the issues might be common to both the suits, issues Nos. 4, 9, 12, 13 and 14 at any rate survive, and consequently the bar of res judicata would not apply." 17. Even if the issues that are common in the two suits, and it has been admitted by the learned. Advocate for the appellants that some of the issues might be common to both the suits, issues Nos. 4, 9, 12, 13 and 14 at any rate survive, and consequently the bar of res judicata would not apply." 17. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1202 while dealing with situation where suits are decreed by common judgment and appeal is filed against one judgment and decree whereas appeal is not filed in the connected case held that finality of finding recorded in the connected suit due to non filing of appeal precludes the Court from proceeding with appeal in other suit. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it becomes final and as this finality can be taken away only in accordance with law, therefore, same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from. 18. In Ram Prakash v. Smt. Charan Kaur and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3760, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :- "2. It would be obvious that since the claims of the petitioner and the respondents have arisen from the same cause of action and the finding of the appellate Court that damages had accurred to the respondents due to misfeasance or malfeasance having been allowed to become final, the decree which is subject matter of the special leave petition cannot be assailed. The self same question was directly in issue and was the subject matter of both the suits. The same having been allowed to become final, it cannot be gone into since the same had attained finality, the petitioner having not filed any appeal against the appeal dismissing the suit. In view of this situation, the High Court was right in concluding that the decree of dismissal of the suit against the petitioner would operate as res judicata under Section 11 CPC in the appeal against which the petitioner has filed the second appeal." 19. In Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another v. Meenakshi Ammal and others (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 624, three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :- "27. In Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another v. Meenakshi Ammal and others (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 624, three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :- "27. Procedural norms, technicalities and processal law evolve after years of empirical experience, and to ignore them or give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice. Where a common judgment has been delivered in cases in which consolidation orders have specifically been passed, we think it irresistible that the filing of a single appeal leads to the entire dispute 30 Page 31 becoming sub judice once again. Consolidation orders are passed by virtue of the bestowal of inherent powers on the Courts by Section 151 of the CPC, as clarified by this Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85 . In the instance of suits in which common Issues have been framed and a common Trial has been conducted, the losing party must file appeals in respect of all adverse decrees founded even on partially adverse or contrary speaking judgments. While so opining we do not intend to whittle down the principle that appeals are not expected to be filed against every inconvenient or disagreeable or unpropitious or unfavourable finding or observation contained in a judgment, but that this can be done by way of cross-objections if the occasion arises. The decree not assailed thereupon metamorphoses into the character of a "former suit". If this is not to be so viewed, it would be possible to set at naught a decree passed in Suit A by only challenging the decree in Suit B. Law considers it an anathema to allow a party to achieve a result indirectly when it has deliberately or negligently failed to directly initiate proceedings towards this purpose. Laws of procedure have picturesquely been referred to as handmaidens to justice, but this does not mean that they can be wantonly ignored because, if so done, a miscarriage of justice inevitably and inexorably ensues. The statutory law and the processal law are two sides of the judicial drachma, each being the obverse of the other. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of OS No. 5 of 1978, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all." 20. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of OS No. 5 of 1978, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all." 20. In Rajni Rani and another v. Khairati Lal and others, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 682 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that keeping in mind the conceptual meaning given to the counter claim and the definitive character assigned to it, there can be no shadow of doubt that when the counterclaim filed by the defendants is adjudicated and dismissed, finality is attached to it as far as the controversy in respect of the claim put forth by the defendants is concerned. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that in that regard nothing survives as far as the said defendants are concerned and if the definition of a decree is appropriately understood it conveys that there has to be a formal expression of an adjudication as far as that court is concerned and the determination should conclusively put to rest the rights of the parties in that sphere. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Court may draw up a formal decree or may not, but if by virtue of the order of the court, the rights have finally been adjudicated, irrefutably it would assume the status of a decree. It further held that where a counter claim which is in the nature of cross-suit has been dismissed nothing else survives for the defendants who had filed the counterclaim and the order passed by learned trial Judge has the status of a decree and the challenge to the same has to be made before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. 21. Similar view has also been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Piar Chand and other v. Ranjeet Sigh and others, in RSA No. 293 of 2006 decided on 16.9.2016. 22. Reverting back to the facts of this case admittedly learned trial court while partly allowing the suit for recovery filed by plaintiff-Corporation, dismissed the counter claim filed by defendant vide which the defendant had prayed for a decree for recovery of Rs. 60,031/-. 22. Reverting back to the facts of this case admittedly learned trial court while partly allowing the suit for recovery filed by plaintiff-Corporation, dismissed the counter claim filed by defendant vide which the defendant had prayed for a decree for recovery of Rs. 60,031/-. In other words, learned trial court held that in lieu of the transaction subject matter of the civil suit, whereas the plaintiff-Corporation was entitled for recovery from the defendant, however, defendant was not entitled for any recovery from the plaintiff-Corporation. Defendant rather than filing two separate appeals, one against the decree which was passed in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation by learned trial court in its civil suit and second against the dismissal of his counter claim, filed only one appeal before the learned appellate court. In my considered view, the defendant erred in doing so because as the partial decreeing of the suit of the plaintiff-Corporation and dismissal of the counter claim of the defendant were two distinct adjudications though made by way of same judgment and decree by learned trial court, both these adjudications assumed the status of a decree and they required to be challenged separately and filing only one appeal against both the said adjudications was not permissible in law. As I have already discussed above, it has been categorically held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in such like matters that a Court may draw a formal decree or not but if by virtue of the judgment of the Court the rights have finally been adjudicated then the same would assume the status of a decree. As the adjudication on the suit filed by the plaintiff-Corporation and adjudication on the counter claim filed by the defendant assumed the status of two distinct decrees, they were required to be challenged by way of separate appeals by paying the requisite Court fee on each of them. Defendant having failed to do so he could not have been granted the relief which was granted by learned appellate court in one single appeal which was filed by defendant against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation by learned trial court as well as against the dismissal of his counter claim. Defendant having failed to do so he could not have been granted the relief which was granted by learned appellate court in one single appeal which was filed by defendant against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation by learned trial court as well as against the dismissal of his counter claim. Learned appellate court failed to appreciate that in the absence of two appeals, one appeal so filed was not maintainable, as the findings returned on plaint and counter claim acted as res judicata vis-a-vis each other which necessitated the filing of two appeals. Learned appellate court also failed to appreciate that non filing of two distinct and separate appeals amounted to having the same effect where no appeal was filed from a decree in connected case and the effect of non filing of appeal against judgment or decree that has become final. In other words because only one appeal was filed, therefore, finality of finding recorded in connected claim on account of non filing of appeal precluded the Court from proceeding with appeal in the other connected claim. 23. To give an illustration, 'A' files a suit for recovery of Rs. 100/- against 'B' and 'B' also files a counter claim for recovery of Rs. 50/- from plaintiff 'A'. Learned trial court partly decrees the suit of 'A" against defendant 'B' for recovery of Rs. 70/- but dismisses the counter claim filed by defendant. In such like circumstance defendant cannot assail the dismissal of his counter claim as well as the partial decree of the suit of the plaintiff by one appeal. The defendant will have to file two separate appeals, one challenging the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff and other challenging the dismissal of his counter claim. However, if plaintiff wants to assail the factum of his suit not being decreed in totality, he is not to file two appeals but he can file only one appeal against the partial allowing of his suit. 24. It is settled law that counter claim has effect of a cross-suit and Court can announce a final judgment both on original claim and on the counter claim. Counter claim filed by defendant has to be treated as a plaint and the effect of counter claim is that even if suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued, dismissed or withdrawn, counter claim can be decided independently on merits. Counter claim filed by defendant has to be treated as a plaint and the effect of counter claim is that even if suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued, dismissed or withdrawn, counter claim can be decided independently on merits. In fact counter claim has to be treated as a plaint and is governed by the Rules applicable to plaint and similarly the reply filed in answer to counter claim is to be treated as written statement and is governed by Rules applicable to written statement. In view of the findings returned above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2005 dated 30.11.2007 is set aside by holding that as defendant had not filed two separate appeals against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation and against the dismissal of his counter claim which findings acted as res judicata vis-a-vis each other, single appeal so filed by defendants was not maintainable before the learned appellate court. The Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. In view of findings returned in this appeal, in my considered view there is no necessity of adjudicating upon the other substantial question of law which was framed by the Court on 28.7.2008. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any stands disposed of.