JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on Admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2017 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby Civil Appeal No.17A/17 preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed and counter appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.73A/17 preferred by respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their status before the learned Civil Court. 4. Facts of the present case are that the plaintiff, in respect of shop (Survey No.1418/10 ad-measuring 0.01 acre) situated at village Beltara, Patwari Circle No.68, filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the son of Late Siyaram Jaiswal whereas defendants No.4 to 6 namely, Asha Jaiswal, Anand Jaiswal and Ku. Rajni Jaiswal are his siblings. The suit shop was purchased by the father of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed on 19.10.1976 from Kedar Prasad Jaiswal. 5. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6 got possession of the suit property and defendants No. 1 to 3 were trying to dispossess the plaintiff, therefore, a report was lodged at Police Station Ratanpur and thereafter, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 6. The defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement wherein they pleaded that part of the suit property was purchased by Lalman through a sale deed dated 02.06.1957 for consideration of Rs. 95/- and possession was also handed over. After the death of Lalman, the part of the suit property was recorded in the names of defendant No. 1 and Durghatiya Bai. It is further stated that the plaintiff in connivance with revenue authorities mutated the property in the revenue records. 7. The learned trial Court framed issues and partly decreed the suit, and held that the suit shop was purchased by the father of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 19.10.1976 from Kedar Prasad Jaiswal and he has the right to alienate the property; the plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6 are title holders and owners of the suit property but they are not in possession and there is no sufficient ground to grant decree of permanent injunction. Consequently, the Civil Suit was partly allowed. 8. Consequently, the Civil Suit was partly allowed. 8. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.17A/17 whereas defendants No.1 to 3 preferred counter appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.73A/17. The learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2017 dismissed the Civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant whereas counter appeal preferred by the defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed as under:- 9. In the present appeal, the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.73A/17. The appellant has challenged the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 17A/2017 only whereas both decrees are not separable; therefore, the instant second appeal preferred by the appellant cannot be decreed in the absence of challenge to judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.73A/17. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hasmat Ali v. Amina Bibi and others (Civil Appeal No.7109 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.25119 of 2019) decided on 29.11.2021 in para-14 held that:- “In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion.” 11. In the matter of Cholapilakkal Abdul Nazer v. Kuttanparambath K. Laxmana and another (2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41152), the High Court of Kerala in para-23 held as under:- “23. Apart from the decisions cited by my brother justice regarding the jurisdiction value to be considered, the same has been considered by the latest Division Bench in Valsala v. Sarojini Prabhu, 2014 KHC 316 where it has been held that valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of the suit and counter claim has to be taken together and payment of court fee will depend upon the subject matter which has been appealed against. So the decision relating to court fee payable and jurisdictional issue will be considered also in respect of case and counter claim, it was treated as the composite value of both the suit and counter claim determines the forum of appeal though court fee need be paid by the party under section 52 of the Court Fees Act in respect of subject matter involved in the appeal alone. So even if the counter claim is for a lessor amount than the suit claim, even then in respect of the counter claim appeal will lie to the same court in which the appeal will have to be filed in respect of the suit as or the purpose of jurisdiction, the composite value of both the suit and counter claim will have to be taken into consideration. That also will give an indication that though counter claim is deemed to be a cross suit by a legal fiction given under the rule, it is treated as part of the same suit and to be decided by the same judgment followed by a single composite decree not by separate decrees. It is also settled law that procedural justice should always give a way to the substantive justice and procedural justice should not be a hurdle for advancing the substantive justice as well. Filing of separate appeals against the case and counter claim is only a procedural aspect which has not been specifically provided in the Code. What is contemplated is only an appeal against the decree and where case and counter claim are disposed of by a judgment in the same suit followed by a composite decree, there is only one decree and not separate decrees as in the case of decrees being drawn in respect of suits disposed of by a common judgment. In such circumstances, insisting for a separate appeal for a suit and counter claim by the same party will only cause unnecessary hardship and create unnecessary procedural hurdle to advance justice. So I am agreeing with the conclusion arrived at my brother that single appeal will lie against case and counter claim and only separate court fee will have to be paid for the respective claims and that will be sufficient.” 12. So I am agreeing with the conclusion arrived at my brother that single appeal will lie against case and counter claim and only separate court fee will have to be paid for the respective claims and that will be sufficient.” 12. In the matter of P. V. George Tharakan v. M. M. Mathew reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 23530, the High Court of Kerala held in para 9 and 12 as under:- “9. A Division Bench of this court in Mathew v. Rajan, (2016) 1 KLJ 526 : 2016 ICO 18 it is not sufficient to challenge the decree in the suit, but it is necessary to challenge the decree in the counterclaim also. But it has not said that* the decree in respect of the counterclaim can be challenged only in a separate appeal. A learned single judge of this court in Girija v. Radha, (2015) 1 KLT 695 : (2015) 1 KLJ 689 : 2015 ICO 81 held that a party aggrieved by the decree passed in a suit in which a counterclaim has been made shall file two appeals, one in respect of the relief claimed in the suit and the other in respect of the counterclaim made in the written statement. This was impliedly overruled by a Division Bench in Cholapilakkal Abdul Nazer V. Kuttanparambath K. Laxmana, (2016) 3 KLT 450 : (2016) 3 KLJ 429 : 2016 ICO 326. The learned Judges took notice of the provisions in Order VIII Rule 6A and Order XX Rule 19 C.P.C. and held that in such a case there is only one suit and one decree and a single appeal is maintainable. 12. In this case the field of controversy was the same in the suit as well as in the counterclaim. The trial court decreed the suit and dismissed the counterclaim. Though it could have been challenged in a single appeal, the party concerned filed two appeals. The appellate court consolidated the appeals and disposed them of by a common judgment. In this second appeal the appellant has challenged the adverse decisions rendered by the court below in both appeals. Separate court fees also has been paid. The appeal is maintainable. The preliminary objection is overruled.” 13. The appellate court consolidated the appeals and disposed them of by a common judgment. In this second appeal the appellant has challenged the adverse decisions rendered by the court below in both appeals. Separate court fees also has been paid. The appeal is maintainable. The preliminary objection is overruled.” 13. From the legal standpoint established by the High Court of Kerala, it is evident that if multiple appeals are filed against a trial court's judgment and decree, and all these appeals are disposed of by a common order, a single second appeal is deemed maintainable. Insisting separate appeal for both the suit and counterclaim by the same party would unnecessarily burden the litigant and create procedural hurdles, hindering the pursuit of justice. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of the suit and counter claim has to be taken together and payment of court fee will depend upon the subject matter which has been appealed against. 14. From perusal of the records, it is apparent that the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.17A/17, whereas defendants No.1 to 3 preferred counter appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.73A/17. The learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2017 dismissed the Civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff whereas counter appeal preferred by the defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed, but in the present appeal, the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed in his appeal only, and he has not paid the Court fees of counter appeal. 15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasmat Ali (supra), Cholapilakkal Abdul Nazer (supra) and P. V. George Tharakan (supra), and the flaw as discussed above, I do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.