Order.- This is a criminal revision case against the order of the learned Revenue Divisional Officer and Ex-Officio Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, directing the removal of one coconut tree in S.F. No. 66/1 of Allur Village, Tiruchi Taluk, on the ground that it is leaning over the pathway and the adjacent house and that it is likely to cause imminent danger to the by passers and the residents of the adjacent house. The coconut tree in question is said to be leaning over the property of one N.P. Rengasamy, the respondent herein. Coconut trees leaning like the tower of Pisa is not an extraordinary sight. Like other trees, coconut trees also very often lean one one side or the other. The fruits of the trees are periodically plucked by the owner of the trees, and, therefore there is very little possibility of the fruits failing on the head of the passerby or the neighbours residing within the area over which the tree is leaning. There are millions of coconut trees in South India, and yet I have not heard of a coconut falling on the head of any human being while he is passing through the coconut tope. That is because, as I said earlier, the fruits are plucked periodically. Even in cyclones when coconut trees are known to fall, they have not fallen on the heads of human beings. 2. This coconut tree, which has been in existence for over 30 years and more, has been producing fruits or should have been producing fruits at least for the last20 years, and yet not one instance of a coconut falling on the head of any human being or animal or any of the products of the tree falling on the head of any human being or on the house of the neighbour has been brought to the notice of the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum Ex-Officio Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, who passed the order now impugned before me or the Executive Magistrates who have passed similar orders earlier, which have been set aside by this Court. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the tree is “an imminent danger” is not based either on any acceptable evidence or taking into consideration the normal and natural course of events. 3. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the tree is “an imminent danger” is not based either on any acceptable evidence or taking into consideration the normal and natural course of events. 3. Moreover, section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is not meant to empower the Executive Magistrate to pull the chestnut out of the fire for private litigants, as in the instant case. There would appear to be some dispute between the revision petitioner and his neighbour and at the instance of his neighbour, the Executive Magistrate have exercised their powers under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, to cut and remove the tree. If the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the tree constituted an imminent danger to the passer-by is upheld, no coconut tree could be allowed to exist on any land adjacent to the public roads or pathways. Moreover, the passage between the houses of the petitioner and the respondent herein is not a public pathway. Even assuming that it is a common pathway, it can be common only to the revision petitioner and the respondent herein. As observed already, this tree has been in existence from a very long time. In fact, it would appear to have been in existence long before the neighbour, viz., the respondent herein, purchased his house adjacent to the property of the revision petitioner. In the circumstances, no action can be taken under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In Kalyanasundaram v. Kalyani Ammal1 Ratnavel Pandian J., has held: “No action can be taken under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the obstruction or the nuisance has been in existence for a long period and the only remedy open to the aggrieved party is to move the Civil Court.” For this proposition, the learned Judge has relied on the ratio in Asharfi Lal v. The State2 and Murlidhar Bhila Patil v. Omkar Vyankat Patil.3 It would be seen from those decisions that proceedings under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, can be taken only in cases of emergency where the public is put to great inconvenience and may suffer an irreparable injury if the encroachment or nuisance is rot removed at once by adopting the summary procedure, and that no action under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, can be taken where the obstruction or nuisance has been in existence for a long time. This obstruction or nuisance, if any, alleged to have been caused by the tree in question has been in existence for a long time without any change in the circumstances, and therefore, the removal of this alleged nuisance cannot be said to be urgent. In the circumstances, the respondent may go to a civil Court to work out any relief that he may be entitled to. The proceedings under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, are uncalled for. 5. Therefore, the order of the learned Revenue Divisional Officer and Ex officio Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, is set aside. This revision case is allowed.