JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners Jokhiram and Prabhu Ram have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 18-12-1975 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Khetri in criminal proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. 1898. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the S.H.O. Police Station Bhuwana submitted a complaint in the court of S.D.M. Khetri under Section 133 Cr. P.C., against the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 on the allegation that the house of one Hari Ram son of Bishna Ram Aheer is situated in Village Navara and infront of his house there is a chowk where the rainy water from the adjoining hill and the water of the adjoining houses collects. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have blocked the channel of the water which should be got opened. 3. The learned S.D.M. Khetri passed a conditional order on 16-2-1970 and the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were given notice with the direction that they should remove obstruction from the water channel within a period of 7 days and if they had any objection, they should show cause. The non petitioners filed their reply to the notice and denied the allegation. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the case of the complainant but curiously enough he passed the impugned order dated 18-12-1975. In the impugned order it was ordered that Hari Ram will pass his water through the house of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Executive Magistrate the petitioners have come before this Court in revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 133 of the Cr. P.C 1898 contemplates conditional order to be issued to persons who are alleged to have caused any obstruction or nuisance. The case of the prosecution was that the non petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were the persons who were obstructing in the flow of water and, therefore, the conditional order was issued against the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. There was no allegation against the petitioners and they were not party to the complaint and as such no conditional order was passed under Section 133 Cr P C against the petitioners. 1 to 5 were the persons who were obstructing in the flow of water and, therefore, the conditional order was issued against the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. There was no allegation against the petitioners and they were not party to the complaint and as such no conditional order was passed under Section 133 Cr P C against the petitioners. Curiously enough the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order against the not petitioners that Hari Ram will pass his water through the houses of the petitioners. It was no case of the complainant that any water channel was obstructed and the same was blocked by them. The court could have passed the absolute order against the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and not against any person who was not the party to the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate has acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order so far as it binds, the petitioners. In view of the above circumstances that the petitioners were not at all the party to the proceedings before the Magistrate, the learned public prosecutor is unable to support the impugned order so far as it effects the rights of the petitioners. In view of the above circumstances it can safely be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners is without jurisdiction and as such it is liable to be set aside so far as it effects the rights of the petitioners. 6. The result is that the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18-12 1475 passed by Executive Magistrate, Khetri is set aside so far as it effects the rights of the petitioners.Revision allowed. *******