JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 25.1.2012 (Annex. 6) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sri Doongargarh in Civil Suit No. 19/2005 to the extent of deciding issue No. 7 and prayed that issue No. 7 may be decided in favour of the petitioner and, according, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents may be dismissed. 2. As per facts of the case, respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner-tenant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 in the year 2001. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 42/2001. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the Act of 1950 was repealed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, therefore, during the pendency of the said suit, an application was moved by the plaintiff-respondent to withdraw the said suit on the ground that there are complexities under the provisions of the Act of 1950 in contesting the civil suit. It was prayed in the application that applicant may be permitted to file suit under the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The petitioner-defendant filed reply and while raising serious objection made request to reject the said application. The trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application and while granting liberty to file fresh suit imposed cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 5. The petitioner-defendant filed writ petition before this Court but the same was decided with liberty to the petitioner to raise objection about the maintainability of the suit before the trial Court. 6. Before the trial Court when new suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction against the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, a written-statement was filed alongwith counter-claim, at application was moved by the petitioner-defendant under Order 14 Rule 2, C.P.C, in which a request was made to decide issue No. 7 first with regard to maintainability of the suit. The trial Court after hearing both the parties decided issue No. 7 in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs and held that the suit is maintainable. The trial Court after hearing both the parties decided issue No. 7 in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs and held that the suit is maintainable. The petitioner is challenging the validity of the said order dated 25.1.2012 on the ground that trial Court has committed grave error while deciding issue No. 7 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents because earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn on the ground that there are great complexities in contesting suit filed under the Act of 1950 whereas under the Transfer of Property Act the suit can easily be filed and contested. 7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, once the plaintiff-respondents preferred suit under the Act of 1950 and withdrew the same, then, obviously the reason for. withdrawal was to be taken into consideration in right perspective: but, without considering the said fact and interest of the plaintiff-respondents. the trial Court decided issue No. 7 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents which is illegal. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no person can be left in an irremediable circumstance. Admittedly, earlier suit was filed and respondents were given liberty as the matter is required to be decided on merit. Therefore, the objection of the petitioner-defendant to maintainability of the subsequent suit under the Transfer of Property Act has rightly been rejected by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 7. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed any wrong while deciding issue No. 7 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with impugned order.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******