JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 12, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1989, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Mohan Dan, Bheek Dan, Maal Dan and Lichu Dan, all residents of village Sangar (district Jaisalmer), on June 28,1989, filed the petition under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer. It was alleged in that application that in village Sangar, adjoining to the house of non-petitioner No. 1 Ramdan there is a public Kathadi and also, a public, way about 3.25 feet wideon the back side of this Kathadi and the villagers are using this public way without any interruption. Non-applicant Ramdan, with the aid of other non-applications, is trying to raise an obstruction on this public way and, therefore, he be restrained from constructing the same and obstructing the public way. In support of this application, the applicant filed to affidavits of Maldan, Mohan Dan, Bheek Dan and Laxman Dan. After the receipt of this application under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code the learned Executive Magistrate madea conditional order and issued notices to the non-applicants requiring them to stop making construction over the public way and to remove the nuisance created on the public way and to appear before him on July 11, 1989, to show cause why he conditional order may not be made absolute. After the service of the notices, non-applicant Ram Dan appeared on July 11, 1989 and prayed for time for filing the reply. So far as the other non-applicants are concerned, Shri Jodha Ram, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of non applicant Ramdan, also, gave an undertaking that he will filed power on their behalf, also. The case was fixed on July 18, 1989. On July 18, 1989, non- petitioner No. 1 Ram Dan filed reply to the application and, also, filed an application with the prayer that the site may be isspected. The application filed by Ram Dan for inspection of the site was allowed by the learned Magistrate and Tehsildar, jaisalmer, was directed to inspect the site and to submit the report. Thereafter the learned Magistrate himself inspection the site and gave opportunity to the parties to produced their evidence. The applicants, in support of their case, produced their evidence. The application filed by Ram Dan for inspection of the site was allowed by the learned Magistrate and Tehsildar, jaisalmer, was directed to inspect the site and to submit the report. Thereafter the learned Magistrate himself inspection the site and gave opportunity to the parties to produced their evidence. The applicants, in support of their case, produced their evidence. The non- applicant did not produce any evidence in support of their case and, therefore, after perusal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated November 24, 1989 made the order dated June 28, 1989, absolute and directed the non-applicants to remove the obstruction made in the public way. Dissatisfied with this order dated November 24,1989, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, who, by his order dated April 12, 1990, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against this order dated April 12, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in the present case is wholly illegal as the learned Magistrate proceeded with the application without passing any conditional order and appointed the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, for inspection of the site, and after receipt of the report of the Tehsildar, he issued notices to the non-applicants and thereafter he himself inspected the site and consulted the several persons and no opportunity was given to the non applications to produce the evidence and it is not a case of public nuisance and of infringement of public right and the matter involved the question of personal right which has been settled by the competent Court. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower Court decided the matter on the affidavits and according to law, the matter could not be decided on the basis of the affidavits. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower Court decided the matter on the affidavits and according to law, the matter could not be decided on the basis of the affidavits. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Courts and a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the present revision petition is not maintainable because the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code is not appealable and, therefore, no appeal was maintainable before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As no appeal was maintainable, the present revision petition, arising out of that order is, also, not maintainable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. It is, no doubt, true that no appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Sub-Division Magistrate on an application under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code and as the appeal was not maintainable, therefore, I treat that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a judgment passed in the revision petition. As there is a specific bar on filing the second revision petition by the same person and in view of the statutory bar under Section 397(3) Criminal Procedure Code for filing the second revision petition, this revision petition is not maintainable. 7. For a moment even if we take the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code then I have to see whether the requirements of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are present in this case or not. In my view, the requirements of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are, also, not present is this case as neither there is any abuse of the process of the Court nor is the order required to be passed to meet the ends of justice. In spite of the fact that the present revision petition is not maintainable, in view of the statutory bar of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code and the requirement of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are also, not satisfied, but still I considered the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the present revision petition is not maintainable, in view of the statutory bar of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code and the requirement of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are also, not satisfied, but still I considered the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the facts of the case. The first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate proceeded with the matter without passing any conditional order. It appears that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not seen the record of the case. The learned Magistrate, after the presentation of the application under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code on June 28, 1989, passed a conditional order, which is on record and the relevant portion of it reads as under: HINDI MATTER 377142 This order, passed by the learned Magistrate fulfils all the requirements of the conditional order and, therefore, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force. 8. The next ground raised by the learned Counsel of for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was not justified in directing the Tehsildar to inspect the site and after the receipt of the report of the Telsidar, to issue notice. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is further that the learned Magistrate himself inspected the site and consulted the several persons, which was, also, not justified. Taking all these three points together, suffice it to say that the notice in the case was not issued after the receipt of the report of the Tehsildar, but the notices were issued to the non-applicants after passing of the conditional order dated June 28, 1989 the day on which the application was presented. So far as the inspection of the site is concerned, the site was inspected on the application filed by the non-applicant Ramdan (the petitioner) himself. When he himself moved an application that the site may be inspected and if accepting his request, the site was inspected and the learned Magistrate formed an opinion after the inspection of the site and on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar on inspection memo, then he is not entitled to raise any grievance because this was done on his own request. 9. The next point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the non-applicant was not given any opportunity to produce the evidence, also, stands falsified from the perusal of the order-sheets. On September 5, 1989, the parties were directed to produce their evidence on September 19, 1989 and on September 19, 1989, the applicants produced their witnesses Laxman Dan, Mohan Dan, Jog Dan, Bheek Dan, Kanju Jan, Mai Dan, Jeewan Dan, Bhanwar Dan and Beni Dan, which is clear from the order-sheet dated September 19, 1989. But the non-applicants Ram Dan and others prayed for time for producing the evidence. On that day, the case was adjourned to October 4, 1989 and the non- applicant were specifically directed to produce their evidence if they so like. On that day neither the non-applicants appeared nor their counsel appeared and on behalf of their counsel, Shri Jodha Ram, Advocates, appeared and as no evidence was produced, therefore, the evidence of the non-applicants was closed and the case was adjourned to October 11, 1989 for arguments. It is, thus, wrong to say that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for producing the evidence. 10. The last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, in this case, did not record the evidence and placed reliance over the affidavits filed by the applicants, is, also, contrary to the record. The order sheet dated September 19, 1989 clearly shows that the statements of the witnesses were recorded. I have perused the record. The statements of the witnesses Hem Dan and Ram Dan are on record and I have, also, gone through the statements of these witnesses. The learned Magistrate, after holding an inquiry, found the case of the applicants as a just and, also, came to the conclusion that the non-applicant has raised construction on the public way and, therefore, he made he conditional order absolute and directed the non-applicants to remove the obstruction from the public way. In arriving this conclusion. In my view, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality. In arriving this conclusion. In my view, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality. When the petitioner failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of his denial of public right, then the learned Magistrate had to proceed under Section 138 Criminal Procedure Code and if after holding an inquiry the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the non applicant has raised construction over a public way then if the learned Magistrate passed an order for removing the public obstruction then non illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate. 11. Consequently, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******