JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Srimadhopur on 4.12.2004 whereby application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC moved by the petitioner Babu Lal in Civil Suit No. 30/2004, has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that earlier the non-petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit (bearing No. 183/2003) for eviction under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the old Act of 1950'), but withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh one under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the new Act of 2001'). Against that order, which was passed on 24.9.2003, the petitioner had filed a writ petition which was disposed of with the liberty to raise valid and just objections at the time of filing of the fresh suit by plaintiffs. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed fresh suit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882, in which the petitioner filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC with the prayer to reject the same as second suit for eviction was barred by law and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. This application of the petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that since the new Act of 2001 was not made applicable in the township of Srimadhopur and the old Act of 1950 has been repealed, thus the suit for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been filed. It is also contended that the earlier suit filed for eviction under the old Act of 1950 was withdrawn with the permission to file a fresh suit after giving a notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. The contention of the petitioner defendant is not factually correct that non-petitioner-plaintiffs have sought withdrawal of the earlier suit on the pretext that they wanted to file a fresh suit under the new Act of 2001 but on the contrary it appears that the permission for withdrawal of the suit was sought on the ground that the new Act of 2001 has come into force and the old Act of 1950 has been repealed, thus after giving a fresh notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 they want to file a fresh suit. On the application of plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit bearing No. 183/2003, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srimadhopur passed the following order: " i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izkFkZuk&i= ckcr okn foM~k fd;s tkus esa tks dkj.k fy[ks gSa] os mfpr gSaA esjs fouez er es fof/k dh fLFkfr ifjorZu gks tkus ij ;fn dksbZ i{kdkj ifjofrZr fof/k ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djrk pkgrs gSa] rks mls ,slk djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA orZeku txg ij jsUV dUV~ksy ,DV ds izko/kku lekIr dj fn;s x;s gSa ,oa oknh ifjofrZr fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr okn is'k djuk pkgrs gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dks u;k okn is'k djus dh vuqefr nh tkus ds lkFk&lkFk okn okfil ysus dh btktr fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA " 7. Thus on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, prima facie at this stage it does not appear that the present suit filed by non-petitioner-plaintiffs is barred by any law. However, the petitioner-defendant will be as liberty to raise valid and just objections in the written-statement.Consequently, the revision petition, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******