K. M. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 3-6-1994, read with order dated 24-6-1995 passed by the District Magistrate Gyalsing, in proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, on 30-5-1994 one Shri Pakhen Yongda lodged a complaint with the District Magistrate complaining of unlawful obstruction by the applicant to the flow of water from a minor irrigation channel (Kulo ). On the basis of this complaint, the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass the impugned order without recording any evidence or notice to the applicant. When this order was sought to be executed much after the date of the order, the applicant derived knowledge of it and rushed to this Court with revision aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE learned public prosecutor appearing for the State first opposed the revision petition on the ground of limitation. However, the objection deserves to be overruled, because there is nothing on record show that the applicant was served with the impugned order dated 3-6-1994 at any time before it was sought to be executed by another order dated 24-6-95 addressed to the Officer in charge, Gyalsing Police Station with a direction to enforce the order dated 3-6-1994. ( 4 ) THE next point urged was that a civil suit pertaining to the same subject-matter was pending before a Civil Court and, therefore, it would not proper to quash the impugned order and to create likelihood of affecting the result of the civil suit. This argument also deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that by interference with the impugned order this Court is not going to decide the real dispute between the parties and, therefore, there is absolutely no possibility of affecting the merits of the case or result of the pending suit between the parties. ( 5 ) NOW coming to the merits of the impugned order, Section, 133, Cr. P. C. speaks of a conditional order in the circumstances mentioned in Section 133 Cr. ( 5 ) NOW coming to the merits of the impugned order, Section, 133, Cr. P. C. speaks of a conditional order in the circumstances mentioned in Section 133 Cr. P. C. itself and says that the Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance to remove such obstruct or nuisance within a time to be fixed in the order"or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why order should not be made absolute. " (Emphasis supplied) Firstly, no time was fixed for removal of the alleged obstruction and secondly, the second part of Section 133 (1), Cr. P. C. requiring the applicant to show cause against the conditional order, was not at all complied with. Further, the learned Magistrate ought to have passed his order under Section 133 (1), Cr. P. C. In the prescribed Form No. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. For all these infirmities and some more, not necessary to mention here, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 3-6-1994, read with order dated 24-6-1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Gyalsing in proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. , is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .