Honble JAIN, J.–This revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.12.1995 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 Smt. Kalawati for being impleaded her as party to the proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. was allowed. (2). The brief facts leading to this revision are that respondents No.3 and 4 submitted an application under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sojat and on that application an order under Sec. 133(1) Cr.P.C. was passed. In those proceedings on 17.2.1994 an application was moved by respondent No.1 Kalawati for being impleaded her as party respondent and the learnedSub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 13.12.1995 allowed that application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.12.1995 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. (3). I have heard M/s. Vinayak M. Joshi and Kailash Trivedi and Mr.R.S. Rathore,the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (4). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no provision for impleading party to such proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. In the matters relating to public nuisance, every citizen being interested, may participatein such proceedings. In the instant case also, respondent No.1 moved an application that she apprehended that respondents No.2 and 3 may not look after the matter properly and so she may be allowed to be impleaded as party respondent to these proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. are almost complete and by allowingrespondent No.1 to implead as party respondent, it would result in unavoidable delay in its disposal and hence the order dated 13.12.1995 allowing the respondent No.1 to be impleaded as party respondent to these proceedings cannot be sustained. (5). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecuter has supported the impu-gned order on the ground that respondent No.1 is an interested party to these proceedings and moreover, she is residing nearby the vicinity which is the subject matter of these proceedings. (6). (5). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecuter has supported the impu-gned order on the ground that respondent No.1 is an interested party to these proceedings and moreover, she is residing nearby the vicinity which is the subject matter of these proceedings. (6). A bare perusal of the provisions of Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. shows that the proceedings contemplated by Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. are of very urgent nature and theExecutive Magistrate is expected to act forthwith for the removal of obstructions and in the matter of public nuisance, any person having interest in the subject matter and feeling aggrieved by the alleged public nuisance may participate in such proceedings. However, this does not mean that any person may apply for being impleaded as party to such proceedings after the lapse of so many years. In the ins-tant case, these proceedings are going on since 1984 and the impugned order has been passed on 13.12.1995. Thus allowing respondent No.1 to be impleaded as party-respondent to these proceedings would certainly result in further delay in disposal of these proceedings. Moreover, there is no provision for impleading any one as party respondent to these proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. It is for theconsideration of the Executive Magistrate whether a particular act complained of amounts to public nuisance and if so, what would be its remedial measure. Thus in the instant case if respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not show any interest to these proceedings, it is the duty of the Executive Magistrate to decide the matter, whether public nuisance is existed or not. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.12.1995 whereby the respondent No.1 Smt. Kalawati was allowed to be impleaded as party respondent to the proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. at such a belated stage cannot be sustained. (7). For the above reasons, I accept this revision petition and set aside the order dated 13.12.1995 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sojat anddismiss the application filed by respondent No.1 for being impleaded her as party respondent to the proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. However, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to expedite the disposal of these proceedings under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C.