1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pali, whereby, the suit for cancellation of release deed, possession & damages filed by the plaintiff appellant has been dismissed and the counter claim filed by the defendant respondents for possession has been decreed.

2. The appeal was admitted on 10.4.2018.

3. The respondent no. 2 has filed reply to the stay petition, wherein, an objection has been raised that the appeal as filed is not maintainable, as a single appeal against the dismissal of the suit and decree of the counter claim is not maintainable and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim any stay against the decree passed in counter claim.

4. When the matter came up for orders on stay application, learned counsel for the parties were heard on the objection to the maintainability of single appeal against the impugned judgment, wherein, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been rejected and the counter claim filed by the defendants has been allowed by the trial court.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of release deed etc. to which a counter claim for possession was filed. The suit was dismissed and counter claim was accepted. It is submitted that in view of express provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A (2), the counter claim has the effect of a cross suit so as to enable the court to pronounce the final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim and, therefore, on passing of the decree based on counter claim filed by the defendants, the same can only be construed as a decree in counter suit and qua the said decree the appellant was required to file a separate appeal and filing of one single appeal in this regard challenging the dismissal of the suit and decree passed in the counter claim is not maintainable.

6. The issue raised pertaining to the non-payment of requisite court fee for challenging both the decrees, even in the present single appeal, though was sought to be argued, the same was then, for time being, left by the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Reliance was placed on Parso vs. Dumnu Ram & Ors. (2017) 3 Shim LC 1270, H.P. State Forest Corporation vs. Kahan Singh, (2016) 6 ILR (HP) 1137, Jethu Singh vs. Board of Revenue, (2017) 2 WLN (Raj) 486 and Rajni Rani & Anr. vs. Khairati Lal & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 682.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court submitted that the plea raised by the respondent in this regard is baseless. It was submitted that though the counter claim was preferred by the defendants seeking possession, as the same forms part of the written statement only, the same was not registered separately and was tried along with the suit, wherein, the trial court framed issues pertaining to the suit/counter claim and passed the judgment, whereby, the suit was rejected and counter claim was accepted and a common decree sheet was drawn by the trial court, wherein, even the stamp duty paid on the suit & counter claim was clubbed inasmuch as the stamp duty paid by the defendants on the counter claim has not even been indicated in the decree sheet. It is submitted that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A (2) CPC, are meant only for the purpose of clarifying the status of the counter claim and the provisions of Order VIII Rules 6A to 6G do not even envisage passing of a separate decree on the counter claim and, therefore, against the rejection of suit and acceptance of counter claim, a single appeal is maintainable and the same has rightly been filed by the appellant and, therefore, the objection raised in this regard deserves to be rejected.

9. Reliance was placed on Pampara Philip vs. Koorithottiyil Kinhimohammad, (2007) AIR Kerala 69 and Shankar Masu Dokare vs. Shobha Subhash Dokare & Anr. (2015) 2 MhLJ 263.

10. I have considered the submission