Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—Brief facts of the case are that the applicant Jameatus Salehat Muslim Girls Educational Society had complained to the City Magistrate on 10.10.2001 that a passage which was being used by the public was being obstructed by the opposite party because of which the passage could not be used by the children going to the school which was run by the society. On the application, reports were called for and ultimately the Magistrate on 7.2.2003 directed the opposite parties to remove the obstruction within 24 hours from the receipt of the order. The opposite party filed a revision being Revision No. 27 of 2003. The Revisional Court allowed the revision on 30.5.2003. This revision has been filed by the applicants who had alleged obstruction of the passage which was being used by the public.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Revisional Court had not set aside the findings as had been arrived at by the Magistrate. He has further submitted that the revision was decided on a wrong premise. The Revisional Court had decided the dispute wrongly as it was under the impression that the obstruction by the opposite party had to be of a dec