JUDGMENT : 1. The present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 17/09/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur rejecting the Application filed by the Applicants below Exhibit No. 50 in Regular Civil Suit No. 240/2021. 2. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Revision Application is as under:- The Plaintiffs have filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 240/2021, inter-alia praying that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – State Authorities should not grant police protection to the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 for taking possession of the Suit Property from them and further that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 should be perpetually injuncted from taking forcible possession of the Suit Property. Since the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the Government Authorities, the Suit is filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division as per Section 32 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act. It is further contention that the Suit Property is an immovable property situated at Village Bembal, Tahsil Mul, District Chandrapur, however, the Suit was filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur. The Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 filed the written statement along with counter claim claiming relief of partition of the Suit Property along with injunction restraining the Applicants from disturbing their possession over the Suit Property. There is no relief claimed against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the contention that the counter claim would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division and as the property is situated at Mul, the Civil Judge Junior Division has pecuniary jurisdiction so also territorial jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim. In view thereof, the Applicants herein filed an Application (Exhibit No. 50) under Order VII Rule 10 for return of the counter claim. The Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 filed their reply. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the Application at Exhibit No. 50. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in view of the Section 16(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the counter claim for partition would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul within whose jurisdiction the Suit Property is located. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in view of the Section 16(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the counter claim for partition would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul within whose jurisdiction the Suit Property is located. It is further submitted that looking to the valuation of the counter claim, it ought to have been filed as a separate Suit before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul. It is submitted that the Trial Court has misinterpreted Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code in rejecting the Application (Exhibit No. 50). 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 invited my attention to the written statement filed by them along with the counter claim. It is pointed out that the counter claim is integral part of the written statement and therefore there is no question of not making the State Authorities as party. It is vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified. If Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code is seen, the only limit which is prescribed is that the counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Court, however, there is no bar to the Civil Judge Senior Division to entertain the counter claim. In fact, to avoid the contrary judgments passed in respect of the same property or same dispute, the provision of counter claim is there so that one Court by one judgment decides the same in one trial. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9, in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments:- “(a) Ussain vs. Muhammed reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 230; (b) Barthels & Luders Gambh vs. M.V. Dominique reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. at 728; and (c) Ramjilal (Deceased by LR’s) & others vs. Narayan Singh reported in 1998 A I H C 1700;” 6. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court, considered the rival contentions of the parties and the citations relied. 7. At the outset, it appears that the Application filed by the Applicants before the learned Trial Court is full of defects. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court, considered the rival contentions of the parties and the citations relied. 7. At the outset, it appears that the Application filed by the Applicants before the learned Trial Court is full of defects. Moreover, Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code is noway related to the present Suit. The counter claim was filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 whereas in Application, it referred as filed by the Respondent No. 4. The Applicants are now relying on the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. The proviso to Section 6-A of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code 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 to 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.” 9. If the proviso to Rule 6-A(1) is seen, the only restriction in entertaining a counter claim is that it shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Though there is a provision under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, this one is an exception to the general rule. Though there is a provision under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, this one is an exception to the general rule. The intention of the legislature is to incorporate this provision so that it enables the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 relied on Ussain (supra) wherein the Kerala High Court held that “Rules 6-A to 6-G of Order 8 C.P.C. which deals with counter claim. Rule 6-A provides that a Defendant in a Suit can, 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 him 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. Proviso to Rule 6-A makes it clear that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Clause (2) of Rule 6-A provides that 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.” 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 also relied on Barthels & Luders Gambh (supra) wherein this Court held that “the only restriction as set out in the provision is that the counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. There is no restriction regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is because the suit and the counter-claim are in many ways not two independent proceedings but a united proceeding. Although Order 8, Rule 6-A provides that the counter-claim is to be treated as a plaint and is to be governed by the rules applicable to plaints, it is not to be treated as a completely separate suit. This is because the suit and the counter-claim are in many ways not two independent proceedings but a united proceeding. Although Order 8, Rule 6-A provides that the counter-claim is to be treated as a plaint and is to be governed by the rules applicable to plaints, it is not to be treated as a completely separate suit. In fact under Order 8, Rule 6-A Sub-Rule (2) the counter-claim is to be treated 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 counterclaim, so that both the proceedings can be disposed of by a common judgment.” 12. Similar is the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramjilal (supra). In the matter before the High Court of M.P., the original claim was decided by the Additional District Judge whereas counter claim has been decided by the Civil Judge, which in the scheme of the law ought not to have been done by him. It is held that “a plain reading of Order VIII, Rule 6-A(2) of the Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that counter claim is a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce final judgment both on the original claim and counter claim.” 13. In view of this settled position, in my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the Application (Exhibit No. 50) filed by the Applicants. In view of the Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, the counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Court, however, there is no bar to the Civil Judge Senior Division to entertain the counter claim. The Civil Judge Senior Division is having jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim which is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Senior Division and the Civil Judge Senior Division can entertain the Suit filed against the State as well as the individual persons. As such, no ground is made out by the Applicants for return of the Plaint. The Application is rightly rejected and the order passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibit No. 50 is perfectly legal, proper and justified. 14. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.