JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. M. Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. NN Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The order impugned in this first appeal is an order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 142/2015. The respondent/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 142/2015 against the present appellant/defendant for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession and cancellation of the sale deed and for permanent injunction. The present appellant, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 filed his written statement alongwith the counter-claim claiming compensation and damages of Rs. 50,00,000.00/- against the plaintiff/respondent. The respondent/plaintiff in their written statement filed against the said counter-claim denied the claim so made and prayed for dismissal of the counterclaim with costs. 3. In the written statement against the counter- claim, the respondent/plaintiff also took the plea that the counter claim is supposed to be treated as a plaint as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), so the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thereafter the respondent/plaintiff filed a separate petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC praying thereby for rejection of the counter-claim. The appellant/defendant No. 1 also filed an objection against the said petition No. 6012/15. The Court below by the impugned order rejected the counter-claim invoking the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. 4. The said order of rejection of the counter- claim by invoking the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree under the provisions of Section 2(2) of the CPC. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the counter claimant/defendant No. 1 under Section 96 of the CPC. Considering the nature of the question raised by the counter claimant/appellant, this appeal is accordingly taken up for its disposal at this stage of admission to which the learned counsel Mr. NN Jha, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent also accepted the view of this Court. 5. Filing of any counter-claim in a suit is provided under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. NN Jha, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent also accepted the view of this Court. 5. Filing of any counter-claim in a suit is provided under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. The said provision also stipulates that the counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the original suit and in the counter-claim. It is also provided under the said provision that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint governed by the rules applicable to the plaint. Order VIII Rule 6C stipulates that where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the Court may on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. 6. The said provision stipulates exclusion of the counter-claim from the title suit but it has not been stipulated that the said counter-claim be dismissed out right. The Court below while passing the impugned order came to the finding that the counter-claim is not directed against the claim of the plaintiff and it is also apparent that the aforesaid claim of compensation etc. are totally unconnected and independent claim having no nexus with the claim of the plaintiff. On one hand, the court below came to the conclusion that the claim made in the counter-claim are totally unconnected and independent claim as to that of the claim of the plaintiff and on the other hand, rejected the counter-claim by invoking the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC vide the impugned order which amounts to a decree. This is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the court below. 7. Coming to the conclusion that the claims made in the counter-claim are unconnected and independent claim, the Court below ought not to have rejected the same. In the alternative, by invoking the jurisdiction as provided under Order VIII Rule 6C ought to have excluded the said counter-claim with a direction to the appellant/defendant No. 1 to file said claim as an independent suit. 8. In Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala Vs. In the alternative, by invoking the jurisdiction as provided under Order VIII Rule 6C ought to have excluded the said counter-claim with a direction to the appellant/defendant No. 1 to file said claim as an independent suit. 8. In Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala Vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala and Ors, reported in AIR 1964 SC 11 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “11. The question has therefore to be considered on principle as to whether there is anything in law- statutory or otherwise- which precludes a Court from treating a counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit. We are unable to see any. No doubt, the Civil Procedure Code prescribes the contents of a plaint and it might very well be that a counter-claim which is to be treated as a cross-suit might not conform to all these requirements but this by itself is not sufficient to deny to the Court the powers and the jurisdiction to read and construe the pleadings in a reasonable manner. If, for instance, what is really a plaint in a cross-suit is made part of a Written Statement either by being made an annexure to it or as part and parcel thereof, though described as a counter-claim, there could be no legal objection to the Court treating the same as a plaint and granting such relief to the defendant as would have been open if the pleading had taken the form of a plaint. Mr. Desai had to concede that in such a case the Court was not prevented from separating the Written Statement proper from what was described as a counter-claim and treating the latter as a cross-suit. If so much is conceded it would then become merely a matter of degree as to whether the counter-claim contains all the necessary requisites sufficient to be treated as a plaint making a claim for the relief sought and if it did it would seem proper to hold that it would be open to a Court to convert or treat the counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit. To hold otherwise would be to erect what in substance is a mere defect in the form of pleading into an instrument for denying what justice manifestly demands. To hold otherwise would be to erect what in substance is a mere defect in the form of pleading into an instrument for denying what justice manifestly demands. We need only add that it was not suggested that there was anything in O. VIII, R. 6 or in any other provision of the Code which laid an embargo on a Court adopting such a course.” 9. The Court below failed to take note of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and instead of directing the appellant/defendant No. 1 to prefer an independent suit with regard to his claim had rejected the counter-claim without considering the force of the said order which is deemed to be a decree. By referring the claim of the counter-claimant to be an independent claim, the learned court below while passing the impugned order had thrown away the claim of the counter-claimant without even hearing the same on merits. This is not the intent and purpose of a court of justice that merely the counter-claim is unrelated with the subject matter of the title suit the same is to be rejected, that too by invoking the jurisdiction of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC inasmuch as the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 has the force of a decree. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed at this admission stage as no records are necessary to decide this first appeal inasmuch as the same involves the question of law. The order dated 16.12.2016, passed in T.S. 142/2015 is set aside and the same is remanded to the trial Court for passing necessary order as per observation made by this court. The counter-claimant/appellant be asked to prefer the said counter-claim as a separate suit and proceed as per the law by excluding the same from deciding alongwith the title suit of the plaintiff-respondents as per the provisions of Order VIII of the CPC. 10. It is needless to say that after appearance of the parties to this appeal before the trial Court, a fresh hearing on the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent be taken up and accordingly pass necessary orders as per the observations made by this Court. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.