Judgment R.K.Merathia, J.-As the attempt for amicable settlement through learned Conciliator, failed, both the connected cases were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In Cr. Revision No. 352 of 1999, petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.12.1999, passed by learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, (SOM), Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 374 of 1999, under Section 147 Cr.P.C. directing him to remove the two newly constructed gates after declaring the right to use the passage in favour of C.P. No.2. 3. In Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2003, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th of June, 2003, passed in Misc. Petition No. 57 of 2002 under Section 147 Cr.P.C., by SOM, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, directing him to remove the obstruction from the passage. 4. Mr. KK Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the procedure contemplated under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was not followed by learned Magistrate while passing the impugned orders dated 9.12.1999 and 10.6.2003 inasmuch as no opportunity to adduce evidence or to object to the re-enquiry report was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that when the said order dated 9.12.1999 was in the process of the execution, the work was stopped on 6.1.2000 as per the stay order of this Court dated 5.1.2000 and as such the order dated 9.12.1999 was not executed. He further submitted that a portion of the disputed passage belongs to Sushil Kachhap, the brother of the petitioner, who was not made party and who by filing an affidavit on 16.1.2006 in this case, asserted that he never allowed C.P. NO.2 to use his portion of the said passage. 5. In reply, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for C.P. No.2, submitted that the said proceedings are summary in nature; that the parties were given full opportunity; that enquiry was held in their presence; that on petitioner's objection, re-enquiry was made in which objections of the petitioner were found incorrect. Such proceedings cannot be continued indefinitely, on the repeated and frivolous objections of the petitioner; that the order dated 9.12.1999 was complied by clearing the passage; that since the time of the father of the petitioner and his brother Sushil Kachhap, the parties have been using the said common passage which is the only path for ingress and egress of O.P. No.2. 6. 6. The questions are whether (i) the procedure laid down under Sections 147 and 148 Cr.P.C. have been followed before passing the impugned orders and (ii) whether the order dated 9.12.1999 was executed prior to communication of the order of stay dated 5.1.2000 passed by this Court. 7. Both the questions are answered in affirmative on the basis of the following facts. 8. O.P. No.2 complained that his only passage, which he has been using on the basis of a written permission of father of the petitioner, from a long time, is going to be closed by the petitioner, which may cause breach of peace. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. (M.P. Case No. 267 of 1999) was initiated. The allegation of O.P. No. 2 was found correct by the police. On notice, petitioner appeared and filed his show cause denying the allegations of O.P. No.2. On 4.6.1999, the case was posted to 8.6.1999. But surprisingly on 4.6.1999 itself, the proceeding was dropped holding that no passage exists, ignoring the police report. 9. O.P. No. 2 had to initiate another proceeding being Misc. Case No. 374 of 1999. An enquiry was held in presence of the parties. Petitioner objected to the enquiry report. An enquiry was made again and petitioner's objections were found incorrect. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the Magistrate found that the earlier proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was wrongly dropped on 4.6.1999; that the fresh proceeding was not barred by res judicata; that the enquiry report, which is of evidenciary value, clearly showed that O.P. No.2 had been using the disputed path and the same has been recently blocked by the petitioner by two newly constructed gates; that a gate of O.P. No.2, existed in the said passage; that there was no other path for him; that the statements of the petitioner, as given in the enquiry report itself, showed that O.P. No. 2 was using the disputed path; and that O.P. NO.2 has acquired a legal right of use over it (distinct from that as an owner). Accordingly, petitioner was directed to remove the two newly constructed gates, by order dated 9.12.1999. This order is under challenge in Cr. Revision No. 352 of 1999. In this revision, on 5.1.2000, this Court stayed the operation of the said order dated 9.12.1999. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to remove the two newly constructed gates, by order dated 9.12.1999. This order is under challenge in Cr. Revision No. 352 of 1999. In this revision, on 5.1.2000, this Court stayed the operation of the said order dated 9.12.1999. O.P. No. 2 filed an application for modification of the said order dated 5.1.2000 inter alia on the ground that the order dated 9.12.1999 was executed by removing the two gates on 5.1.2000, but petitioner had again put gates/ obstructions in the passage. This Court on 20.10.2000 ordered that if any fresh cause of action' exists for taking appropriate action by the Magistrate, the said interim order of stay dated 5.1.2000 will not be an impediment for him to take action or pass order on any such fresh cause of action, which has no concern with the subject matter of the dispute in this case. 10. Accordingly, O.P. No.2 filed a petition before the Magistrate which was registered as Misc. (P) NO.168 of 2000. By order dated 25.8.2001; the Magistrate held that the said proceeding was not maintainable in view of the pendency of the present Criminal Revision No. 352 of 1999 in this Court and the complaint case filed against the petitioner under Section 188 IPC for violation of order dated 9.12.1999. 11. Against this order dated 25.8.2001, O.P. No.2 moved this Court being Cr M.P. No. 128 of 2002 in which on 8.3.2002, this Court quashed the said order dated 25.8.2001 and remitted the matter to the SDM for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Petitioner filed an application for modification of the order dated 8.3.2002. It was rejected by this Court. 12. Thereafter the parties appeared in the proceedings which was numbered as Misc. (P) No. 57 of 2002. A spot verification was made in presence of the parties. In the enquiry report dated 26.8.2002, it was found that the passage of O.P. No.2 was obstructed by the petitioner. On petitioner's objection to this enquiry report, a re-enquiry was made as per the provisions of Section 148(2) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. The objections of the petitioner were found to be incorrect. It was found that on 5.1.2000, the obstructions were removed but petitioner again closed the passage. The Magistrate found that there was a fresh cause of action. On petitioner's objection to this enquiry report, a re-enquiry was made as per the provisions of Section 148(2) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. The objections of the petitioner were found to be incorrect. It was found that on 5.1.2000, the obstructions were removed but petitioner again closed the passage. The Magistrate found that there was a fresh cause of action. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials on record, in exercise of the powers under Section 147 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction from the passage, by order dated 10.6.2003. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2003. 13. In the circumstances, noticed above, it cannot be held that the procedures laid down under Sections 147 and 148 Cr.P.C. were not followed, before passing the impugned orders. 14. Regarding second question, petitioner relies on the purported endorsement made on 6.1.2000 on a copy of the order of stay to the effect that work stopped in view of the order of stay dated 5.1.2000. Against it, the compliance report filed on 5.1.2000 in the proceedings, to the effect that the order dated 9.12.1999 was executed by clearing the passage, is more reliable. Moreover, on enquiry also, it was found that the order dated 9.12.1999 was executed but the petitioner violated it by obstructing the passage. In fact for violation of the order dated 9.12.1999, a complaint was filed against the petitioner, on which cognizance was taken, which is under challenge by the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 8077 of 2000, pending in this Court. But as this second issue was raised by Mr. K.K.Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been gone into. Accordingly, in the circumstances, noticed above, it cannot be said that the order dated 9.12.1999 was not executed on 5.1.2000. 15. In the result, both the criminal revision applications are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to comply with the order dated 10.6.2003, passed in Misc. Petition No. 57 of 2002, within two weeks from today. However, the parties will not be prejudiced by any observation made in these proceedings, in any civil suit between them. No costs.