1. Being aggrieved by order dated 3.09.2010 passed by District Judge, Indore in M. C. Case No. 133/2010 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 24 of CPC for transfer of the civil suit No. 85-A/08 pending before XII Civil Judge, Classs 2, Indore to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Indore where CS No. 12-A/2010 is pending, was dismissed, present petition has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 11 and 12 filed a suit against the petitioner on 4.2.2008 alleging that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit accommodation. It was alleged that decree of eviction be passed under section 12 (1) (a) (e) in the Accommodation Control Act (hereafter shall be referred to as "the Act"). The suit was registered as CS No. 85-A/2008 in the Court of XII Civil Judge, Class 2, Indore. Therefore, a suit was filed by the petitioner on 15.2.2010 for specific performance of the contract wherein it was alleged applicant entered into a agreement to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,000/-, therefore, a decree for specific performance be passed. Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was registered as CS No. 12-A/ 2010 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge; Indore. An application was filed by the petitioner under section 24 CPC before the District Judge, Indore wherein it was alleged that since the parties in both the suits are roughly one and the san1e and the issue involved is also one and the same similarly suit property is also one and the same, therefore, in the interest of just ice suit No. 85-A/2008 pending in the Court of XII Civil Judge, Class 2, Indore be transferred to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Indore where CS No. 12-A/2010 is pending. The application was contested by the respondents on various grounds. It was prayed that application be dismissed. After hearing the parties learned trial Court dismissed the application against which present petition has been filed.

3. Preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. A.K. Sethi, senior advocate appearing for the respondent No. 11 and 12 regarding maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel submits that the petition itself is pending before the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner U/S 24 CPC before the District Judge, then too the remedy available to the petitioner is not to challange the order but to file separate petition before this Court under section 24 CPC as under section 24 CPC jurisdiction is concurrent to both the Courts.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for transfer can be filed by any of the parties under section 24 CPC before the High Court or District Court. Thus the jurisdiction of both the Courts are concurrent but if party to the litigation chooses to challenge the order passed by the District Court before the High Court, then petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground that since remedy is available to the petitioner under section 24 CPC therefore, the revision is not maintainable. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Judge by filing writ petition and the same was withdrawn. It is submitted that the objection be over ruled. So far as merits arc concerned, learned counsel submits that learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Court below as it saves time, energy, and money. It is submitted that in both the cases, suit-property is one and the same. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of Premlala Nahata and another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria reported in (2007) 2 SCC 51 w