Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The plaintiff-applicant has approached this Court assailing order dated 1 December 2015, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015 rejecting the contention of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff that the appellate Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal being under valued at 5 lakhs rupees. The valuation of the appeal should have been valued at 15 lakhs rupees i.e. 5 lakhs rupees for suit and 10 lakhs rupees for the counter claim.

3. The applicant instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 247 of 2003 (Ashok Kumar Singh Senger v. Om Prakash Chaturvedi and others) for permanent injunction and to declare the sale-deed dated 22 November 2003 a void document. The suit was valued at 5 lakhs rupees i.e. half of the sale price of the alleged sale-deed as the applicant claimed title over half of the suit property. The first and second respondents contested by filing written statement and a counter claim was sought seeking possession and damages of the disputed property. The counter claim was valued at 10 lakhs rupees i.e. value set forth in the sale-deed. The suit was decreed by the trial Court declaring half of the sale-deed to be void, further, first and second respondents were restrained from taking possession without partition of the suit property, thus, rejecting their counter claim; aggrieved, respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai valuing it at 10 lakhs rupees, thereafter, the appeal was withdrawn on the statement of the counsel. Upon reinstitution, the appeal was valued at 5 lakhs rupees as the appeal was directed against the judgement and decree of the suit. The respondents did not challenge dismissal of their counter claim in appeal. The applicant, therefore, filed an application contending that the appeal being under valued at 5 lakhs rupees, whereas, the valuation of the appeal should be 15 lakhs rupees.

4. It was sought to be contended that upon a suit being decreed and counter claim rejected, the valuation of the appeal would be the aggregate of the value of the suit and that of counter claim, since the entire proceedings being unified, therefore, in appeal single proceeding is sought to be challenged, irrespective of the dismissal of the counter claim.

5. Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that the valuation of the appeal would depend upon the relief claimed by the respondents, it need not be the value of the suit; the valuation for Court fee is different and distinct from valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court, since decree allowing the suit was being assailed in appeal, therefore, valuation of the suit was set forth in appeal, the dismissal of counter claim was not challenged in appeal, therefore, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Courts below.

6. The rival submissions fall for consideration.

7. The point for determination is as to whether the appeal was correctly valued at 5 lakhs rupees for the purpose of jurisdiction.

8. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 Act No. XIV of 1882 (the old Code) i.e. prior to the present Code of 1908, provision for filing written statement and set-off was under Chapter III.

9. A special committee was appointed by the Council of Governor General of India to consider the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code. The said special committee submitted it’s report. It was accepted and published in the Gazette of India (Part V) September, 1907.

10. The Code of Civil Procedure Act V of 1908 (CPC), (the New Code) came to be enacted to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Procedure of the Civil Courts. The new Code received assent of the Governor General of India on the 21st March, 1908. As a result of new Code, amended provision Order 20, Rule 19 relating to the decree when set-off is allowed came on the statut