JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. Suit was one for setting aside a final order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur. The order is dated 6th May 1988. The order is passed under S.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The operative portion of the order reads thus:- "From the evidence available to this court, it is satisfied that the removal of the building in dispute is necessary for the safety of the general public. The court admit that if timely repairs were done to the building its condition could not have deteriorated to the present position where nothing short of a total demolition of the building is possible for avoiding danger to the general public. The removal of the building may cause hardship to the tenants now occupying the building. But private interest have to subjugate itself to public interest. Therefore the conditional order passed by this court is made absolute. The tenants are asked to vacate the building to enable the petitioners to demolish the building. ' One months time is given to the petitioners and the counter petitioners to carry out the order, failing which the court will take steps to enforce the order." This order was challenged before this court in Crl. M. C. No. 755/88 by the present plaintiffs. This court dismissed the Crl. M. C. 2. As such the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is operative and so the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to set aside the order. The court below considered many points including the question of jurisdiction and other allied matters and finally dismissed the suit. 3. One of the most important points perhaps the principal point that has been pressed before me is that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is illegal in so far as an order passed under S.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should necessarily precede a preliminary conditional order under S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear that it is purely a legal question. Of course, this legal question has to be decided on the facts available in this case. In the order passed by this Court in Crl. M. C. No. 755/88, the very same point was raised and this Court held that it is not correct to say that there was no conditional order. Of course, this legal question has to be decided on the facts available in this case. In the order passed by this Court in Crl. M. C. No. 755/88, the very same point was raised and this Court held that it is not correct to say that there was no conditional order. The only irregularity that can be attributed is that the conditional order was not passed in strict compliance with the formalities prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This court said that those formalities will not go into the substance of the matter and so there is substantial compliance of S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so S.138 of the order now challenged in the suit is a valid order. 4. Before the court below, it was contended that the order makes it clear that the conditional order has been made absolute. So long as there is no conditional order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot make a non existent conditional order absolute. This is a very attractive argument and that argument was put very forcefully and attractively by counsel for the appellants. Nevertheless, the submission cannot stand the scrutiny, since there was a conditional order though not as I said earlier, in strict conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This aspect has also been considered by this court and so I cannot say that the court below is wrong in finding that there is no illegality in passing an order under S.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been challenged in this suit. Though the other points were raised, those points are not substantial points, which can be legally pressed into service. 5. Though I am exercising an appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be thought that my power is unlimited in the sense that I have got all the powers of a trail court in appreciating the evidence of the case. Normally, it is thought that in a first appeal, the appellate court can reverse the findings of the court below. It is not very correct to say that at all circumstances, the appellate court can reverse the findings of the court below. I say so on very good authority. Normally, it is thought that in a first appeal, the appellate court can reverse the findings of the court below. It is not very correct to say that at all circumstances, the appellate court can reverse the findings of the court below. I say so on very good authority. In Stepney B. C. v. Jotte Lord Justice Goddard said thus:- "It is constantly said (although I am not sure that it is always sufficiently remembered) that the function of a court of appeal is to exercise its powers where it is satisfied that the judgment below is wrong not merely because it is not satisfied that the judgement is right". So necessarily I have to examine whether the judgment of the court below is wrong. It is not enough to say that the judgement is not quite right. I am sure that the facts revealed in this case and the decision in the revisional proceedings taken on the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is not possible for me to say that the judgment of the court below is wrong. In the result, I see no merit in this appeal. Appeal is only to be dismissed. I do so. I am told that the appellants are occupying the building as tenants doing small business. They want to find out alternative accommodation and counsel submitted that a breathing time should be given to them for vacating the premises. I grant two months time from today to the appellants to vacate the premises.