This writ petition arising from the order dated 31 st August, 2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2005 passed by the II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji is heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission.

Facts : The facts required to be stated to decide this petition are as under :2. Plaintiff had instituted a suit, before Civil Judge, Senior Division valued at Rs. 38,500/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, inter alia, praying for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for deletion of the entry in occupant's column of the record of rights.

3. On being summoned, petitioner appeared and filed written statement inter alia, denying the claim of the plaintiff and preferred counter-claim, inter alia, claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- from the plaintiff and for the said purpose valued the counter-claim at Rs. 90,00,000/-.

4. The trial Court after trying the suit and counter-claim on merits by its judgment and order dated 31-12-2004 was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter-claim of the petitioner.

5. Respondent No. I-original plaintiff in the suit, filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court before the District Court, whilst the petitioner chose to file cross objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code" for short).

6. The petitioner, by an application dated 14th July, 2005, inter alia, submitted that as the valuation of the counter-claim before the lower Court was Rs. 90,00,000/- and as the same being the valuation in cross-objection filed before the Appellate Court, the District Court would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and or decide the matter, hence appeal along with crossobjection be transferred to the High Court.

7. The learned II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji, after hearing the arguments of the rival parties, was pleased to reject the above application of the petitioner by its order dated 31st August, 2005 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeal and cross-objection in view of provision of Order 20, Rule 19(2) of the Code.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 31 st August, 2005, petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said impugned order.

Rival Submissions

9. Mr. J. K. Coilho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order dated 31st August, 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside as the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and dispose of the appeal since the subject-matter of the appeal exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.

10. In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel the value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the counter-claim gets rolled up and interlocked and by implication, as a general rule, constitute unified proceedings unless the counter-claim is excluded under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-C of the Code.

This exceptional provision in Rule 6-C only illustrate the homogeneity of the suit claim and the counter-claim as a single proceeding.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further urged that the reliance placed on provision of the Code by the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous and misplaced. According to him, Order 20, Rule 19 sets out; how a judgment is to be rendered and a decree to be drawn where set off or counterclaim is allowed. In his submission Rules 9 to 19 of Order 20 are illustrative of contents of decrees in certain specified categories of suits. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others, 2002 DGLS 928 = 2003(1) see 197.

12. Mr. Pareira would submit that Order 20, Rule 19(2) is one of such illustrative provisions dealing with appeal in Suit where counter-claims have been allowed. While putting his interpretation on th