Judgment : In this revision Petition the revision petitioner is challenging the order dated 212. 1986 in Reference No.5066/02/85 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Mahe. A few facts are essential to be stated in this case. The revision petitioner and the sole respondent are neighbours. There is admittedly a tree situated in the house of the revision petitioner. On 29. 1985 the respondent gave a complaint to the Executive Magistrate, complaining that the existence of the tree in the hours of the revision petitioner is a source of nuisance not only to his personnel safety but also to his property. In other words him grievance was that the tree is situated in such a manner that it is likely to fall at any time on his house and thereby cause danger to his personal safety as well as damages to the property. On this basis he moved the Executive Magistrate to take appropriate steps to protect him. 2. The Executive Magistrate passed an order under Sec.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12. 1985, directing the removal of the tree as a whole. Thereafter, the revision Petitioner filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that the petition moved by the respondent would not come within the purview of Sec.133 of Crl.P.C. He had further stated in that petition that if the tree is removed, it would hurt the religious feelings of several people. It is his further case that the respondent in the revision petition knowing fully well about the existence of the tree, had constructed his house underneath the tree and having done so, it is not open to him now to complain. On the basis of the petitioner, he wanted the order to be rescinded. It appears the Executive Magistrate by his proceedings dated 29. 1986 intimated both the revision petitioner and the respondent about his proposed inspection of the site on 29. 1986 at 11. 30 a.m. It is not disputed that this notice was not served on either of the parties. Thereafter, after conducting the local inspection pursuant to the notice referred to earlier, the Executive Magistrate passed as order on 212. 1986 intimated both the revision petitioner and the respondent about his proposed inspection of the site on 29. 1986 at 11. 30 a.m. It is not disputed that this notice was not served on either of the parties. Thereafter, after conducting the local inspection pursuant to the notice referred to earlier, the Executive Magistrate passed as order on 212. 1986 in and by which he directed that instead of removal of the tree as a whole, it is enough if the breaches that protrudes and extend over the respondent’s house property need be out and removed. This order is challenged in this revision petition. 3. Mr.D.Saravanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner put forward the following points to set aside the order impugned in this revision petition. According to him, the Executive Magistrate is bound to take evidence as provided for in Sec.138 of Crl.P.C, which he had failed to do. Secondly, he would may that the Executive Magistrate had not furnished him the copy of his inspection report and therefore, he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to know what it contained and effectively put forward his defence. .4. As far as second point raised is concerned, I do not see any record showing that the revision petitioner had asked for a copy of the inspection report. Though a ground is raised in the criminal revision cases here, yet in the absence of a written demand and refusal, it is not possible to allow such a ground at the stage because one may not be sure whether really a demand was made or not. As far as the first point is concerned, I am of the following opinion: Under Sec.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a preliminary order is passed for removal of the nuisance. The person against whom an order is made and on being served with such an order, has a right to either obey the order or show cause as to why he shall not obey as provided for in Sec. 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a person against whom an order is passed does not obey the order or show cause as to why he shall not obey, he shall be liable with the penalty prescribed in that behalf in Sec.188 of the Indian Penal Code as provided for is Sec. 136 of the Code. .5. If a person against whom an order is passed does not obey the order or show cause as to why he shall not obey, he shall be liable with the penalty prescribed in that behalf in Sec.188 of the Indian Penal Code as provided for is Sec. 136 of the Code. .5. In this case, the complaint was made by the respondent about the nuisance on 29. 1985. The Executive Magistrate passed an order on 12. 1985 as provided for under Sec.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously, in accordance with Sec.135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner filed the statement to the Executive Magistrate on 212. 1985. Thereafter, after giving notice of inspection to the revision petitioner and the respondent fixing 29. 1985 as the date of inspection, the Executive Magistrate had inspected the site. After such inspection, he passed as order on 212. 1985, which, as already stated, is impugned in this criminal revision case. The Executive Magistrate, while considering the cause shown by the aggrieved person is under a legal obligation to inquire into the matter before proceeding under Sec.138, Crl.P.C. In other words, the inquiry contemplated under Sec.137 shall proceed the further proceedings under sec.138 of the Code, as could be seen from the wording of Sec. 137(1) itself. Sec. 137 of the Code contemplates the Executive Magistrate conducting an inquiry as provided for there is on the appearance of the person against whom an order under Sec.133, Crl.P.C. was made and the Executive Magistrate has to question him as to whether he denies the existence of any public right in respect of the way, river, channel or place in respect of which the order had been made. On such questioning if the concerned aggrieved person denies such right, then the Magistrate before proceeding under sec.138 should inquire into the matter. The questioning to be done by the Magistrate under Sec.137, as is clear from the section itself, is only with reference to any order that has been made for preventing construction nuisance or danger. To the public in the use of any way, river, channel, of place and not in any other cases. This order preventing obstruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way, river channel or place, is covered under Sec.133(1)(a) of the Code. To the public in the use of any way, river, channel, of place and not in any other cases. This order preventing obstruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way, river channel or place, is covered under Sec.133(1)(a) of the Code. In other words, a reading of Sec.137(1) itself makes it clear that whenever any order is passed under Sec.133 relating to a public right, then only the questioning under Sec.l37(1) would arise. Why I am saying this is because Sec.133 contemplates various types of orders being passed and all those types of orders do not necessarily relate to any public right. For instance, the order impugned in this criminal revision case relates to the contingency said to have been provided for in Sec.133(1)(d) of the Code. Sec.133(1)(4) cannot be said to relate to any public right and it is definitely a private right. In this case, the grievances made to the Executive Magistrate was with reference to the private right of the sole respondent in the criminal revision case and it does not relate to any public right. Therefore, I am of the opinion that only when an order is made, involving a public right in the use of any way, river, channel or place, then only the questioning as stated under Sec.137(1) of the Code should be made and otherwise not. .6. In this case, as already stated by his, the revision petitioner had not anywhere stated that the grievance of the respondent based on the location of the tree in his house would not some under Sec.l33(1)(d) of the Code. In other words, he had not stated that no injury whatsoever would be caused to the respondents, who is his neighbours. The objections of the revision petitioner to the order passed on 12. 1985, if perused carefully, do not any way touch upon this apprehension of danger to personal safety and to the property of the respondent. The revision petitioner had not categorically stated anywhere in his objections dated 212. 1985 that the nuisance as apprehended by the respondent is not there. In other words, the nuisance as apprehended by the respondent is impliedly admitted by there being no express denial. In my view, this stand of the revision petitioner in his statement dated 212. 1985 would not amount to showing cause against the order dated 12. 1985 that the nuisance as apprehended by the respondent is not there. In other words, the nuisance as apprehended by the respondent is impliedly admitted by there being no express denial. In my view, this stand of the revision petitioner in his statement dated 212. 1985 would not amount to showing cause against the order dated 12. 1985 passed under Sec.133 of Crl.P.C. When a Public right is not involved, the Executive Magistrate is at liberty to go over to Sec.138 of the Code. Here, I have to point out that there is a provision is Sec.137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes it very clear that if a public right is denied by the aggrieved party and there is reliable evidence in support of such denial, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is ousted and he must await the result of the verdict from a Civil forum regarding such public right. Sec. 137(2) also says that if the Executive Magistrate finds no such reliable evidence, it is open to him to proceed tin accordance with Sec.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have already stated that no public right at all is involved in this case and it is a private right of the respondent that was decided by the Executive Magistrate. Even otherwise, when the revision petitioner had already, filed a written objection to the order passed under Sec.133, the need to question him as provided for in Sec.l37(1) of the Code is wholly superfluous. In other word,s even assuming for a moment that the Magistrate is bound to question him, it has become wholly unnecessary in view of the statement field by him before the Executive Magistrate. 7. The next stage that follows is provided for in Sec.130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though Sec. 138(1) says that the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in as summons case on the aggrieved person showing cause against the order, yet I am of the view that on the facts of the case, regarding of evidence as provided for is Sec.138 would not arise at all. The emphasis is on the word “shows cause”. I have already found that the revision petitioner had not shown any cause at all to defeat the rights of the respondent as provided for in Sec.l33(1)(d) of the Code. The emphasis is on the word “shows cause”. I have already found that the revision petitioner had not shown any cause at all to defeat the rights of the respondent as provided for in Sec.l33(1)(d) of the Code. The Magistrate exercising the power either under Sec.137 or under Sec.138 of the Code is given a power to direct a local investigation to be made by such person as he thinks fit. In this case, the local investigation has been done by himself on 29. 1986, long after the preliminary order and three months before the final order under Sec.138. Therefore, the Magistrate making a local investigation by himself in order and on such investigation, he should have come to the conclusion that the uprooting of the entire tree itself is not necessary and in that context, his original order dated 12. 1985 needs modification. Only in this back ground, the learned Magistrate had passed an impugned order dated 212. 1986. 8. Under these circumstances the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Magistrate is under an obligation to record evidence in this case is wholly unwarranted by any provision of law mucless by Sec.138 of the Code. If the Magistrate is satisfied on his local investigation about the factual position and if he has come to a definite conclusion that his earlier order needs a modification, there is no need for him to examine any further evidence before court. In my opinion, the revision petitioner had not shown any court against the original order dated 12. 1985 before the Executive Magistrate, he has not also produced any reliable evidence before the Magistrate about say public right being involved. When the questioning relates to the Public right alone as provided for under Sec. 137 of the Code and if there is any denial, them the party denying such right should produces the reliable evidence. If he fails to deny or having made a denial and fails to adduce reliable evidence is support thereof, he shall not be allowed in the subsequent proceedings to make any such denial. Under the same principle, I am of the opinion that having failed to show cause against the preliminary order dated 12. 1985, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that he must be permitted to let in evidence under Sec.138 of the Code. Under the same principle, I am of the opinion that having failed to show cause against the preliminary order dated 12. 1985, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that he must be permitted to let in evidence under Sec.138 of the Code. In any event, it is not the case of the revision petitioner that he asked for an opportunity to 1st in evidence before the court and that it has been refused, assuming for a moment without admitting that he has a right to let in evidence. Under these circumstances, I see no reason at all to interfere with the order of the Executive Magistrate and the revision is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 412 of 1907 is also dismissed.