ORDER C.P. Sen, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against the order passed by the District Magistrate under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to open the common entrance door and to demolish the wall in order to provide passage to the non-applicant to his residential house which is on the back side of the house of the applicant. The order has been confirmed in revision by the Sessions Judge. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant and the non-applicant are stepbrothers and there has been a mutual partition of their ancestral properties more than 20 years back. The front portion of the house has been allotted to the share of the applicant and the back portion to the share of the non-applicant. On 4-7-1973 the non-applicant moved an application under section 144 of the Code in the Court of the District Magistrate, Satna alleging that the common passage through the building of the applicant has been closed by the applicant with the result that there is no approach to his house which is on the back side. The District Magistrate called for a report of the Tahsildar and on receipt thereof he passed the preliminary order on 16-7-1973 directing the applicant to remove the obstruction and keep the approach open. In reply to the show cause notice the applicant denied that there is any such passage through his building but on the other hand submitted that there is a common passage by which the portions of the respective parties can be approached from the public road. The alleged common passage is, in fact, a portion of the building of the applicant which has been reconstructed about nine years back and it is meant for use by the womenfolk in his house and if the passage is open, their privacy will be disturbed. Since the non-applicant also made an allegation that inspite of the preliminary order the applicant has not opened the passage, the District Magistrate directed the S.D.M. to verify the matter on the spot. After hearing the parties, the preliminary order has been affirmed and the applicant has been directed to open the passage and demolish the wall. A revision preferred against the order has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 3. After hearing the parties, the preliminary order has been affirmed and the applicant has been directed to open the passage and demolish the wall. A revision preferred against the order has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 3. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision has to be allowed and the order of the District Magistrate has to be set aside. It is the case of the non-applicant that there has been a mutual partition more than 20 years back and since then this common passage is being used by him which means that the non-applicant has got a right of easement by the use of the passage for more than 20 years The parties have not produced any documents to show as to how the partition was effected and as to whether any passage was provided through the portion allotted to the share of the applicant. The Tahsildar in his report has mentioned that the applicant has reconstructed a new building by demolishing the old structure more than six years back and since then the non-applicant is at the mercy of the applicant for using the passage as on and off the entrance door is being closed by the applicant. The non-applicant has not explained as to why he took no immediate steps when the applicant was reconstructing his building and utilising the passage within the constructed portion. Both the Tahsildar and the S.D.M. in their reports mentioned that there is another common passage for approaching the portions of the respective parties which leads to the public road. However, it has been mentioned in these reports that this common passage might not be useable during the rainy season but there is no evidence led on this account by the non-applicant. If there is a common passage and which is a public way the better course would have been for the non-applicant to approach the authorities for making the public way roadworthy during rains also. Because of the accumulation of rain water on the public way, the non-applicant cannot have a right of way through the building of the applicant. If there is a common passage and which is a public way the better course would have been for the non-applicant to approach the authorities for making the public way roadworthy during rains also. Because of the accumulation of rain water on the public way, the non-applicant cannot have a right of way through the building of the applicant. It is also pertinent to note that although the preliminary order was passed as late as on 16-7-1973 and which was stayed first by the Sessions Judge and then by this Court in these proceedings and the passage in question remained closed all these time, the non-applicant found no difficulty in approaching his house from the public road. As the dispute is of a civil nature, the applicant having disputed the right of passage through his building and the non-applicant having asserted that he has perfected his easementary right by user for more than 20 years, the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute is the Civil Court and not a proceeding u/s 144 of the Code. This apart, there is a specific section 147 provided under the Code for removal of obstruction to any passage and if at all action should have been taken under that section and not u/s 144. Otherwise also the order of the District Magistrate has lapsed after two months as provided u/s 144 of the Code. 4. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The orders passed by the District magistrate and the Sessions Judge in revision are set aside and the proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are filed.