Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 20.1.2010, made in I.A.No.421 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006, filed by the respondent. The suit had been filed for recovering vacant possession of the suit schedule property, from the defendant. The Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.421 of 2009, had been filed by the petitioner praying that the trial Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the suit, till the disposal of the writ petition, in W.P.No.25535 of 2005, on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 3. The trial Court, by its order, dated 20.1.2010, had dismissed the interlocutory application stating that the plaintiff in the suit had not stated that he is continuing as a tenant in the suit property. The issue to be decided in the suit is whether the tenant is in unlawful possession of the suit property and whether he is liable to be evicted from the suit property. The trial Court had also held that the issue involved in the writ petition is in no way connected with the issue arising for adjudication in the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006. It has also been stated that the petitioner had not filed a copy of the writ petition. It had also been stated that the suit is ready for trial and the application had been filed only in the month of August, 2009, even though the writ petition had been filed in the year, 2005. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the trial Court had passed the order, dated 20.1.2010, without considering the factual position relating to the status of the petitioner. As the writ petition filed by the petitioner, in W.P.No.25535 of 2005, is relating to the removal of the petitioner from service by the respondent Devasthanam, the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006, should be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition, pending on the file of this Court. 5. He had also submitted that since the issue arising for consideration in the writ petition, in W.P.No.25535 of 2005, and in the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006, are connected, the trial in the suit should not be proceeded with till the disposal of the writ petition. 5. He had also submitted that since the issue arising for consideration in the writ petition, in W.P.No.25535 of 2005, and in the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006, are connected, the trial in the suit should not be proceeded with till the disposal of the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not in service in the respondent Devasthanam. Further, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the available grounds in the suit, in his favour, during the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2006. There is no explanation from the petitioner as to why the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.421 of 2009, had been filed only in the year, 2009, in the suit of the year, 2006, when the writ petition had been filed before this Court in the year, 2005. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 20.1.2010, made in I.A.No.421 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2006. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.