B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of an order passed dismissing an application under Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) THE applicant complainant and the non-applicant No. 1 reside in adjoining premises. The two premises are separated by a common wall. It is the allegation of the applicant that while erecting over the common wall as it originally existed, the non-applicant has raised another wall which is not perpendicular to the ground but is a bit slanting. He was asked to remove that wall being dangerous. The non-applicant did not accede to the request of the applicant. The wall is slanting and there is a constant danger of its falling down. It was, therefore, said that the wall may at any time collapse and may endanger the lives of the inhabitants. The application was initially allowed. The matter came to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 348 of 1982. By order dated 24/8/1982, passed in that revision, the matter was sent back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as it was found that the prescribed procedure was not followed inasmuch as the applicants witnesses were not first examined in the presence of the non-applicant. After the matter went back, two witnesses were examined but the non-applicant did not appear to cross-examine them. Spot was also inspected by the Magistrate. This time it was found that the wall stood firm for the last about seven years and that on observation it was found that the wall was properly erected. The learned Magistrate found that the wall was not likely to fall and, therefore, dismissed the application. ( 3 ) IN this revision, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that admittedly the wall being not perpendicular to the ground is in the danger of collapsing any moment. He referred to the evidence adduced in support of this contention and strongly relied upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, in Achalch and v. Suraj Rai , As against this, it was submitted for the non- applicant that there was no immediate danger of the wall collapsing and that dispute being private no action under the section was called for. It was also submitted that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the order could not be interfered with. It was also submitted that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the order could not be interfered with. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision must be dismissed. It is now well settled that the idea behind Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code appearing in Chapter X under the sub-head Public Nuisances is to avoid irrepairable damage to Public as a result of some imminent danger. The Magistrates are not expected to use the power under this section against a person who can easily be pro secuted under the ordinary law. A private individual cannot insist that a Magistrate must pass an order under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code. It is the discretion of the Magistrate to pass an appropriate order under Section 133 if he is satisfied that the conditions mentioned therein exist and require an order in terms of that Section. At that time, these proceedings should not be resorted to settle private dispute between different members of Public. Disputes between private individuals based upon certain rights should be taken to civil Courts. The Magistrate should guard himself against the tendency to use that Section as a substitute for litigation in Civil Court. It has, therefore, been often said that the provisions of this - Section should be sparingly used. The section deals with conditions of things at the time when an Order is made and does not taken into account any apprehension of danger in future. Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 133 specifically deals with any building, tent or structure, or any tree that is likely to fall and may thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood. In a case falling under this clause (with which alone we are concerned in the present case), it must to shown that the state of building is dangerous in presenti. Any possibility of its being dangerous in future should be keep out of consideration. ( 5 ) THE finding in the present case is that the offending structure, namely, the wall has stood firm for the last about seven years. The stop inspection note made by the Magistrate shows that there is no imminent danger of its falling down. Any possibility of its being dangerous in future should be keep out of consideration. ( 5 ) THE finding in the present case is that the offending structure, namely, the wall has stood firm for the last about seven years. The stop inspection note made by the Magistrate shows that there is no imminent danger of its falling down. True it is that there is some evidence showing that the wall is not perpendicular to the ground and in the opinion of the Engineer it is likely to fall down. Nevertheless, the fact is that is has not so far fallen down. The learned Magistrate, therefore was right under these circumstances, in not directing demolition of that wall. It cannot be said that by refusing to direct demolition of the wall any injustice much less substantial injustice has been done to the applicant requiring interference by this Court. What appears is that over a common all the non. applicant has raised a wall which does not suit the applicant. If the applicant has any right against the non-applicant raising such a wall, the dispute is more of a private nature and the right can only be enforced by action in civil Court. The proceedings under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code, under these circumstances, are not available to the applicant. The decision in Achalchands case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant rested on a finding of the Magistrate that the new construction raised on an old common wall was in a dangerous condition. The learned Chief Justice delivering the order observed that for the order under section 133 Criminal Procedure Code what is necessary is that the building should be likely to fall down and thereby cause injury either to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourbood or to those passing by. That being so, the decision in Achalchand's case (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as the finding in the present case is that the offending structure is not likely to fall. That being so, the decision in Achalchand's case (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as the finding in the present case is that the offending structure is not likely to fall. ( 6 ) FOR what I have said above, the finding reached by the Magistrate that the wall is not in dangerous condition and is not likely to fall cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise unjust and I am not prepared to hold that the decision of the Magistrate bas caused any injustice to the applicant requiring interference in that order by this Court. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed. .