JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This application in revision is directed against a notice dated a-3-1967 issued against the Petitioner by a First Class Magistrate, Bhanjanagar. The notice runs as follows: Whereas it appears to me that Sri Lal mohan Patnaik of Bhanjanagar (Petitioner) has constructed a latrine by forcibly occupying a portion of backyard of the Petitioner (opp. party herein), and whereas it appears to me by such location of the latrine the Petitioner is likely to be affected it being adjacent and unlawful, I, Sri L. Panda, Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhanjanagar hereby order u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure that the said Lalmohan Patnaik should show cause against removal of such latrine by 23-3-1967. 2. It is contended by Mrs. A.K. Padhi, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that the construction of the latrine by the Petitioner by forcibly occupying the backyard of the opposite party, even if true, cannot be made the subject matter of a dispute u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that consequently the initiation of the proceedings by the learned Magistrate u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure is without jurisdiction. 3. Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure occurs in Chapter X which deals with public nuisances. A "public nuisance" is defined in Section 268, Indian Penal Code as a nuisance which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obscuration, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. Proceedings u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure are therefore intended to protect the public as a whole against any in convenience and they are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public. If a person has any private right which he wishes to enforce, he should seek redress in a Civil Court. The notice in this case makes it quite clear that what is sought to be protected thereby is not in public interest but in the interest of a private individual, namely, opposite party herein. If a person has any private right which he wishes to enforce, he should seek redress in a Civil Court. The notice in this case makes it quite clear that what is sought to be protected thereby is not in public interest but in the interest of a private individual, namely, opposite party herein. It is alleged in the notice that the Petitioner has forcibly occupied a portion of the backyard belonging to the opposite party and that the latrine which the Petitioner intends to construction the land so occupied is likely to affect the opposite party adversely. It is, there fore, clearly a dispute between the Petitioner and the opposite party and the public interest does not at all come into the picture. 4. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Dayal Misra v. Mt. Jagdamba Debi and Anr. AIR 1942 All. 443 expressed the view that the proceedings u/s 133 are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public that they are intended to protect the public as a whole against inconveniences, and that if a person has any private right which he wishes to enforce, he should take his troubles to the civil Court. Chaturvedi, J. in Shaukat Hussain and Anr. v. Sheodayal Saksaina AIR 1955 MP 350 while holding that Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "Public Nuisances" and not with private nuisances, expressed the view that Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure provides a speedy and summary remedy in case of urgency where danger to public interest or public health is concerned and that in all other cases the party should be referred to the remedy under the ordinary law. 5. In view of the clear and unambiguous language in Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, there cannot be any doubt that the proceedings therein are intended to be applied to public nuisances and to protect the public as a whole against any inconvenience. In this view of the matter, the proceeding started by the learned Magistrate against the Petitioner is clearly misconceived and is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 6. I would accordingly allow this application, and quash the notice dated 8-3-1967 issued by the learned Magistrate against the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed