When a party wants to challenge both the partial decree of a suit and the dismissal of a counter-claim, separate appeals must be filed for each. Filing a single appeal against both adjudications is not permissible. Counter-claims have the effect of a cross-suit and can be decided independently on merits. The finality of findings when no appeal is filed from a decree in a connected case.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant/Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2005 dated 30.11.2007, vide which learned appellate court while allowing the appeal so filed before it by the present respondent, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff-Corporation and decreed the counter claim of defendant for recovery of Rs. 60,031/- with pending and future interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization along with costs.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that appellant/plaintiff-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-Corporation') filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 68,735/- on the ground that in the year 1997 tenders were invited for extraction of resin and its carriage up to the road side Depot, for Lot No. 30/97 which work was allotted to defendant, (Kahan Singh since deceased), vide agreement dated 20.3.1997. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that for the said work the target was fixed 126 quintal pure resin from 3140 blaze and the rate fixed was Rs. 600/- per quintal for extraction of resin and transportation of the same upto Roadside Depot. The total value of the work as per plaintiff-Corporation was Rs. 75,600/- and per section yield in the said lot was fixed at 40 quintal and all these aspects of the matter were made clear in the agreement itself. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that earnest money in the shape of FDR for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited and pledged in the name of plaintiff-Corporation for the said lot by the defendant. It was further the case of the plaintiff-Corporation that against the target of 126 quintals, the entire pure resin which could be extracted by the defendant was 86.980 quintals which was 39.020 quintals less than the fixed target which had caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,28,766/- to the plaintiff-Corporation on account of less extraction of resin. It was further mentioned in the plaint that defendant had raised objection that during the said period there was heavy rain as well as other unfavourable circumstances and after taking into consideration his plea, the higher authorities had granted relaxation of 12.600 quintal in favour of the defendant and after giving the said relaxation, the defendant was still liable to pay to the plaintiff-Corporation an amount of Rs. 68,735/- as per calculations given in the plaint along with interest @ 18% per annum and costs of the suit.

3. The claim of the plaintiff-Corporation was resisted by the defendant who stated that reduction of yield was not on account of his acts of omission and commission. It was mentioned in the written statement that in fact the yield which was fixed by the plaintiff-Corporation qua Lot No. 30/97 was arbitrarily fixed in proportion to the yield of previous years and that yield had been reduced due to heavy rain which in fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff-Corporation. As per defendant he extracted 86.980 quintals of resin and if the same was worked out on the basis of yield of previous years, the target so achieved was more than the target of the previous year.

4. Defendant simultaneously also filed counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 60,031/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from November, 1997 onwards. As per defendant he had extracted 86.980 quintal of pure resin, value of which was Rs. 52,188/- whereas he had only been paid Rs. 1568/- by the plaintiff-Corporation. Defendant thus prayed for recovery of the said amount as well as the earnest money which was deposited by him with costs and interest.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff-Corporation is entitled to the suit amount, if so to what extent ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff