JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition, in revision, against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the seven Petitioners u/s 421 I.P.C. but reducing the sentence of fine passed on them from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 50/- each. The Petitioners are agnates of the complainant and the two are fighting out a litigation regarding right of way over a passage between their houses, situated in plots 246 and 268 in village Dharpur, P.S. Binjharpur. The passage is said to have led to a Sarbasadharan rastha and just where the passage joins the rastha there was a gate fitted into brick walls on either side. Some of the Petitioners figured as Plaintiffs in title suit No. 190 of 1952 in the Court of the Munsif of Jajpur in which the complainants father Maheswar Rath (son of Giridhari Rath) and his co-sharers figured as Defendants. The relief asked for in that suit was for a declaration that the Plaintiffs (Petitioners party) were entitled to have a right of way over the disputed passage and for a permanent injunction restraining with this right. The suit was instituted on 9-8-1952 and during the course of that suit a pleader commissioner was sent to the spot to take measurements and give his report. His report, Ext. 1 dated 12-4-53 is to the effect that there was a brick wall and a gate at the southern end of the disputed plot where it leads to the Sarbasadharn rastha. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs by the learned Munsif on 10-2-1956 and their right of easement over the passage was declared and the Defendants were restrained permanently from interfering with that right. It was alleged that being emboldened by this decree the Petitioners in a body came to the spot on 13-2-1956 demolished the compound wall of the complainant also the wooden gate fixed to the wall thereby causing to the complainant a loss of Rs. 200/-. Both the courts believed the complaint's version to the effect that the Petitioners participated in the destruction of the brick wall and the gate on 13-2-1956, and I see absolutely no reason to take a different view so far as this finding is concerned. 2. 200/-. Both the courts believed the complaint's version to the effect that the Petitioners participated in the destruction of the brick wall and the gate on 13-2-1956, and I see absolutely no reason to take a different view so far as this finding is concerned. 2. The aforesaid decision of the Munsif was reversed by the appellate court on 21-8-1959 in T.A. No. 46 of 1959 and the dispute is now pending in the High Court in second appeal. The subsequent history of the civil litigation is however not material for the purpose of the present criminal litigation. The main question is whether the action of the Petitioner in demolishing the wall and the gate on 13-2-1956 was criminal or else whether it was justified as having been based on a bonafide claim of right. The Petitioners completely denied the incident and did not take the plea that they acted under a bonafide claim of right in view of the decision of the Munsif in their favour. Nevertheless, on the admitted facts the question of bonafide action arises for consideration. The lower appellate court rightly pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever for the action of the Petitioners and that in the exuberance of their success in the civil litigation they deliberately committed mischief with a view to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The decree and judgment of the Munsif did not direct the removal of the wall or the gate or of the portion of the wall where the gate was fixed. It only recognised the right of easement of the Petitioners, and prohibited the Defendants from interfering with that right. If there was some evidence on record to show that notwithstanding the decree the Defendants locked the gate or otherwise prevented the Petitioners from exercising this right of way, the further question as to how far the Plaintiffs-decree-holders would be entitled to break the wall and the gate may arise for consideration. Mr. B.K. Pal for the opposite party relied on Section 36 of the Easement Act and urged that there was no justification whatsoever for the Petitioners to abate the wrongful obstruction of the easement. He also relied on Haribilash Show and Others Vs. Mr. B.K. Pal for the opposite party relied on Section 36 of the Easement Act and urged that there was no justification whatsoever for the Petitioners to abate the wrongful obstruction of the easement. He also relied on Haribilash Show and Others Vs. Naraindas Agarwalla where it was pointed out that a private party has no right to abate, by their own acts, a nuisance relating to obstruction to an easement unless such obstruction has actually become a nuisance. 3. Here there is no evidence to show that the mere existence of the gate amounted to obstruction to the Petitioners' right of way. It has already been shown that the Petitioners did not take the plea that the gate was locked or else that obstruction in any other form was put on their exercising this right of way over the disputed passage, Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no justification for the Petitioners to break down the wall and the gate thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. 4. The lower appellate court has also reduced the sentence of fine from Re. 200/- to Rs. 50/- on each of the Petitioners and I see no justification for further reducing the same. The lower appellate Court omitted to expressly confirm the trial court's order directing payment of Rs. 150/- as compensation to the complainant. This portion of the trial court's order is therefore confirmed. The revision petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed