JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It appears that trial court granted permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act by the order dated 29th March, 2005. According to the petitioner he submitted writ petition to challenge order dated 29th March, 2005 in the year 2005 but that writ petition which was entered in Inward Register at S.No. 6943/2005 alongwith stay petition at No. 6944/05, which was mis-placed by the Registry. It is submitted that regular number to the writ petition was not given as it was not registered at that time. The petitioner thereafter submitted application for reconstitution of the record of the writ petition which was filed in the year 2007 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20th September, 2007 passed in S.B.C. Misc. Application No. 57/2007. It is submitted that file in this way has been reconstituted from the copies of the petition filed in the year 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plaintiff respondents filed suit under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises Rent and Eviction Act, 1950. That Act was repealed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. (Herein after referred as Act of 2001 in short). As per section 32 of the Act of 2001, all the suits, which were filed under the repealed Act and were pending at the time of commencement of Act of 2001 could have been withdrawn in time on coming into force of the Act of 2001 for presentation in the Rent Tribunal and that could have been done only where provisions of Act of 2001 were made applicable. In this case, it is admitted position that Rent Control Act, 2001 is not applicable as the area is not covered by the Act of 2001. The trial Court could not have granted permission to file the suit under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Section 32 of the Act clearly provides that pending suit shall be decided under the repealed Act and for that purpose the provisions of Act of 1950 were kept alive. 4. It appears from the fact of the case that, order dated 29th March, 2005 was passed with liberty to file fresh suit in the civil court. Petitioner defendant put in appearance and filed written statement. 4. It appears from the fact of the case that, order dated 29th March, 2005 was passed with liberty to file fresh suit in the civil court. Petitioner defendant put in appearance and filed written statement. According to the petitioner he has serious objection about maintainability of the suit and the petitioner has already opposed the prayer for permission to file fresh suit of the respondents. 5. Since, after the order dated 29th March 2005, two years have already been passed and writ petition might have been submitted in the High Court in the year 2005 itself but admittedly even the writ petition was not registered, therefore, no interim order was passed by this Court and after two years or more than that there is no reason to entertain the writ petition as the petitioner has already raised objections against maintainability of newly instituted suit before the trial court and that issue can be decided by the said trial Court. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may raise objections before the Civil Court in the subsequently filed suit filed by the respondents. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to raise objection about the maintainability of the suit before the trial Court.Writ petition dismissed. *******