This is an appeal preferred against the decree in O.S.No.126 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode and also as against the counter-claim filed by the defendant in the said case. The suit was one for return of advance amount of Rs.14,000 and some other amount due to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant agreed to sell a Jeep bearing Regn.No.KED 3290, a 1987 model and therefore he agreed to purchase it for Rs.1,00,500. As per the agreement an amount of Rs.14,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. An amount of Rs.61,000 was to be paid on 31-1-1990 and the balance amount of Rs.25,500 was to be paid on 28-2-1990. As the plaintiff wanted to raise some loan he got the document particulars from the defendant and forwarded to the financier and thereafter the financier informed him that the vehicle was a 1986 model. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant bona fidely believing that the jeep is of 1987 model as represented by the defendant and that was the reason for the purchase of the jeep. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has misrepresented and therefore he is entitled to the return of the advance amount paid by him.

2. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that it is not so and the plaintiff has perused the document even before executing the document and there has been no misrepresentation, whereas on the other hand, he had used the vehicle in such a way that it was damaged, the defendant has to pay money and further he had produced the bills for the repairs and there was no misrepresentation or breach of contract. The plaintiff had used the jeep and derived income. He has filed a counter-claim for the damages caused to the jeep and also for the depreciation of profit for a long time.

3. In the trial court, P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and, Exts.A-1 to A-3 and Exts.B-1 to B-9 were marked. On an analysis of the materials, the trial court granted a decree for return of advance amount and negatived the prayer for counter-claim. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent had raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal is not maintainable before this court for the reason that the suit is valued for Rs.19,000 and the counter-claim is valued for Rs.25,000 and the counter-claim has to be treated as a cross suit and therefore they are having independent existence and therefore the appeal has to be filed only in the District Court where the jurisdiction is upto Rs.25,000 at that point of time. According to him, Section 13 of the Civil Court Act precludes the defendant from filing an appeal this court. Under Order VIII, Rule 6A(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”. It is also stated under Order VIII, Rule 6A(1) proviso that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent had also pointed out to me the provision contained in Order XX, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Order XX, Rule 19(2) any decree passed in a suit in which a set-off or counter-claim is claimed shall be subject to the same provisions in respect of appeal to which it would have been subject if no set-off or counter- claim had been claimed. So learned counsel for the respondent contends that the plaint as well as the counter- claim are having independent existence and since a counter-claim is filed in the suit itself, according to him, the appeal would lie in a court where an appeal from the suit would lie. The counsel also contends that there have to be two appeals and therefore two appeals have to be filed before the District Court and not a single appeal before the High Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the suit and the cou