JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is a reference made by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur by his order dated 31-3-1973 remand coming that the order dated 16-12-1972 passed by the Additional City Magistrate(I), Kanpur, allowing an application moved by the opposite-parties for the appointment of a jury in a proceeding under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) be quashed and the learned Magistrate be directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the order of reference. 2. The relevant facts are that the learned Magistrate passed the usual conditional order under section 133, Cr.P.C. on the 18th of M y, 1971. It may be mentioned at this stage that the vela city or legality of the said show cause order was not challenged and the applicant in fact, had that order upheld by this Court when the learned Magistrate tried to alter it by a subsequent order dated 14-12-1971 and this Court actually by its order dated 21-8-1972 directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case according to law on the basis of the order dated 18-5-1971. I thought it necessary to mention this because one of the contentions put forward on behalf of the present applicant (revisionist) before the learned Sessions judge was that in any case the order dated 18-5-1971 was not a legal order in accordance with the provisions of section 133, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions judge, if 1 may say so, has rejected this contention for cogent reasons which need not be repeated. After the conditional order, the revisionist in accordance with section 135 (b), Cr.P.C. filed objections against the order passed under section 133, Cr.P.C. and it may be mentioned that no prayer was made for the appointment of a jury. Subsequently, on 24-7-1971 more than a month later an application was moved for the appointment of a jury as provided in clause (b) of section 135, Cr. P. C . 3. Subsequently, on 24-7-1971 more than a month later an application was moved for the appointment of a jury as provided in clause (b) of section 135, Cr. P. C . 3. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the observations made by the Patna c High Court has made this reference ( because he is of the view that after the t party proceeded against under section f 133, Cr.P.C. has opted under section t 135 (b), Cr.P.C. to 'show cause' against h the order under section 133, Cr.P.C., C It is not open to the party to claim trial s by a jury subsequently. In this case, A it may be repeated, the opposite-party b~ decided to show cause against the con- unconditional order and actually filed objections on the 14th of June, 1,71. On going through the relevant provisions e of law I find myself in agreement with - the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge which need not be repeated. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on another ruling reported in A. I. R. 1958 Pat, 269, (Dwarka Singh and others v. Lal Bihari Singh), and has argued that it was open to the opposite-party to apply for a jury even after he had decided to show cause under section 135 (b), Cr.P.C. as no preliminary inquiry was held till then by the Magistrate within the meaning of section 139-A, Cr.P.C. It was urge that after the conditional order under section 133, Cr.P.C. was passed and the opposite-party or the party proceeded against shows cause against the order and appears before the learned Magistrate, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to question him as to whether he denied the existence of the alleged public right in respect of the alleged nuisance. If the opposite-party denied such a right, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to inquire into the matter and in case the opposite party accused any reliable evidence in support of such denial, the Magistrate has to stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of such right has been decided by a competent Civil Court. If on the other hand, the Magistrate finds that there is no such reliable evidence, he has to proceed either in accordance with the provisions of section 137 or section 138- as the case requires. If on the other hand, the Magistrate finds that there is no such reliable evidence, he has to proceed either in accordance with the provisions of section 137 or section 138- as the case requires. It was urged that from what has been mentioned, it is clear that it is open to the party against whom a conditional order has been passed I under section 133, Cr.P.C. to apply for the appointment of a jury after the preliminary inquiry as mentioned has been made under section 139-A, Cr.P.C. I am afraid, I do agree with the contention put forward. As soon as the conditional order has been served on the party concernel under section 135, Cr.P.C. he has to decide whether lie would like to show cause against the conditi nal order or apply to the Magistrate for the appointment of a jury. I may be mentioned that whether the party concerned decides to show cause or applies for the appointment of a jury, in either case, it is apparent, lie denies the public right. What the law requires under section 139-A, Cr.P.C. is that the Magistrate before acting under section 137 or under section 138, Cr.P.C. must hold a preliminary inquiry to find out if the party proceeded against is able to make out any prima facie case or in other words, if the party concerned is able to adduce any reliable evidence in support of such denial. It may be repeated that the question of denial would arise whether the party decides to show cause against the order by adducing evidence before the Magistrate under section 137, Cr.P.C. or before the jury under section 138, Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, not correct to say that section 135, Cr.P. C. would come into operation after the preliminary inquiry under section 139-A, Cr.P.C. has been concluded. Section 139-A, Cr.P.C. has been enacted to the rights of a party being jeopardised by summary proceedings by which cases under Chapter X have to be decided. In case a party is able to adduce any reliable evidence, the law requires that there should be a detailed inquiry trial in a competent Civil Court to determine the rights of the party proceeded against instead of his rights being decided in a cursory manner under this Chapter. In case a party is able to adduce any reliable evidence, the law requires that there should be a detailed inquiry trial in a competent Civil Court to determine the rights of the party proceeded against instead of his rights being decided in a cursory manner under this Chapter. The party proceeded against, however, has to decide at the out on receiving the conditional order whether he would like to show cause again t the order in accordance with section 137, Cr. 1'. C. or in accordance with section 138, Cr.P.C. and it may be repeated t'-at whatever forum the party may choose, it is the duty of the Magistrate to hold a preliminary inquity, before that, under section 139-A, Cr.P.C., but that does not mean that the party proceeded against has been given a right to decide whether lie would like to 'how cause against the order in accordance with section 137 or in accordance with section 138, Cr.P.C. after the preliminary inquiry under section 139-A, Cr.P.C. has been concluded. 5. In view of the reasons discussed, I accept the reference, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 16-12-1972 as recommended and hereby direct that the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the case keeping in view the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge and also by this Court.