Heard both sides.

2. The revision petitioners challenge the order dated 20.1.08 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode peremptorily restraining the revision petitioners from reducing the width of the pathway from eight feet. The said order is purported to be a final order presumably issued under Section 138 Cr.P.C.

3. I perused the lower court records.

4. On6.03.04, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode contenting, inter alia, as follows:-

The counter petitioners who are the new owners of the nearby residential building bearing No.10/1983 have attempted to reduce the width of the pathway used by the petitioners and others by constructing a compound wall along the pathway. The said pathway is the only access for ingress and egress to the petitioners and others. Hence appropriate orders may be passed to restore the pathway to its original condition.

5. On the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode passed an order on 16.3.04 as follows:-

"Village Officer, Cheruvannur shall inspect the site at once and furnish details but the counter petitioners may be permitted to maintain status quo ti