ORDER : Prayer in A.No. 1811 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Section 24 of the CPC praying the court to withdraw the suit pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai to the file of this Court and try the same in accordance with law. Prayer in A.No. 1812 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Section 24 of the CPC praying to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai till the said O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 is withdrawn from the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai to the file of this Court in accordance with law. 1. Application in A.No. 1811 of 2020 has been filed to withdraw the suit pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai to the file of this Court and Application in A.No. 1812 of 2020 has been filed to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai. 2. Heard Ms. Priyadarshini Natarajan learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.C.P.Siva Mohan learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Applications, supporting affidavits and other materials produced are perused. 3. The Application mentioned Suit in O.S.No. 4820 of 2019 has been filed by the Respondents for the following Reliefs: "a. For recovery of the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- brorrowed by the Defendant on 28.08.2018 covered under the Registered Promissory Note bearing registration number 47 of 2018 at SRO, Surandai with further interest to pay the plaintiff and the value of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. b. For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, agents representatives or any one acting on behalf of him from in any way disturbing interfering and thratening the plaintiff in their business place and their family members at residence place in guise of any demand for cancelling the Registered Promissory Note dated 28.08.2018 Registered Document No. 47 of 2018 SRO at Surandai and in any manner affecting the right and peaceful life to the Plaintiffs and their family Members except by due process of law. c. To award cost of suit. d. And to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 4. The Applicant herein is the Defendant in the above referred suit filed Written Statement incorporating the counter claim which is valued at Rs.2.70 Crores which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. After filing Written Statement the Applicant herein has come forward with the present Transfer Application stating that the suit should be transferred to this Court since the counter claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the suit is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that since the cause of action for the Plaintiff and the cause of action for the Defendant are one and the same, he has no other alternative remedy except to file the counter claim in the suit filed by the Respondent herein. Even after knowing the same that the City Civil Court, Chennai is not having pecuniary jurisdiction for trying the suit valued at Rs.2.70 Crores, and the Applicant herein filed the said counter claim and arguing for transferring the entire suit from the file of City Civil Court, Chennai, to this Court. 6. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon the following three judgments: 1. Raj Associates Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another, 2009 SCC Online Del. 1176 2. Pritesh Kumar Singh Vs. Peepee Publishers and Distributors, 2015 SCC Online Del. 11261 3. Jag Mohan Chawla and Another Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang, (1996) 4 SCC 699 7. On going through close reading of the said judgments, it is revealed that the factual aspects narrated in the above referred judgments is not in correspondence with the present case. Pritesh Kumar Singh Vs. Peepee Publishers and Distributors, 2015 SCC Online Del. 11261 3. Jag Mohan Chawla and Another Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang, (1996) 4 SCC 699 7. On going through close reading of the said judgments, it is revealed that the factual aspects narrated in the above referred judgments is not in correspondence with the present case. It is not the contention of the Petitioner that in any one of the above referred cases as the counter claim filed along with the Written Statement is exceeded the pecuniary limit of that court in which the suit is pending. In fact, for making a counter claim the cause of action need not be the same as the one available to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall have separate cause of action to make a counter claim against the Plaintiff. In such eventuality the Defendant can either file a separate suit or make a counter claim in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. At this juncture it would be necessary and relevant to see the Order VIII Rule 6A of C.P.C which reads as follows: "The Proviso to Sub-Clause (1) makes it clear that the counter claim shall not exceed limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Sub Clauses (2) to (4) serve as an explanation of the proviso. According to Sub Clause (2) Counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit. Sub Clauses (3) enables the plaintiff to file a written statement rebutting the counter claim. Sub Clause (4) enables that the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint directing all the provisions applicable to the plaint." 9. Further in the judgment rendered by this Court in M.K. Muthurajan vs. A. Parasuraman [Tr. C.M.P. No. 260 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016] this Court has observed as follows: "When the defendant cannot file a separate suit in the Court in which suit filed by the Plaintiff is pending as his claim would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court, then he cannot make a counter claim subject to a rider that he can do so by complying with the provisions found in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C." 10. Therefore, without adverting to the said provisions, due to the wrong advice, the petitioner seems to have made a counter claim, he exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the suit is pending. Therefore, without adverting to the said provisions, due to the wrong advice, the petitioner seems to have made a counter claim, he exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the suit is pending. The said attempt can even be termed to be an abuse of process of Court. In otherwise, the only remedy available to the Applicant is that to accrue the counter claim from the said suit and to initiate separate proceedings in respect of the claim made towards the respondent. 11. Further in the similar issue our Honourable Apex Court has held in SLP (C) No. 27264 of 1995 Reported in Gurbachan Singh vs. Bhag Singe and Others, CDJ 1995 SC 172 where in it is stated as follows: "3. It is true that Rule 6A(a) was introduced by Amendment Act of 1976. Preceding the amendment, it was settled law that except in a money claim, counter claim or set off cannot be set up in other suits. The Law Commission of India had recommended, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, right to the defendants to raise the plea of set off in addition to a counter claim in Rule 6 in the same suit irrespective of the fact whether the cause of action for counter claim or set off had accrued to defendant either before or after the filing of the suit. The limitation was that the counter claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the written statement before the defendant filed his written statement or before the time limit for delivering the written statement has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. Further limitation was that the counter-claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, by laying the counter claim pecuniary jurisdiction of the court cannot be divested and the power to try the suit already entertained cannot be taken away by accepting the counter claim beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.. Thus considered, we hold that in a suit for injunction, the counter-claim for possession also could be entertained, by operation of Order 8 Rule 6 (A)(1) of CPC." 12. Thus considered, we hold that in a suit for injunction, the counter-claim for possession also could be entertained, by operation of Order 8 Rule 6 (A)(1) of CPC." 12. Therefore all these principles observed by our Honourable Apex Court as well as by this Court is vary narrow that the Applicant is not entitled to file a counter claim for a value which exceeds the pecuniary limit of the Court in which the suit is pending. Therefore no merit found in the application filed by the Applicant. The Application is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the same, the Application No. 1811 of 2020 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Application in A.No. 1812 of 2020 is closed.