HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5193 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 9 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M./ Civil Judge, Chitrakoot by which the complaint of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order dated 03.05.2012 was passed by learned Civil Judge (SD) Chitrakoot in respect of O.S. No. 44 of 2012 for maintaining status quo by the parties to the suit. It is further submitted that the opp. party nos. 2 to 9 gathered outside of the house of the revisionist started cutting the mango tree. When it was opposed by the revisionist, that in fit of rage, they assaulted the revisionist. The revisionist has given a call to the police. The opp. party nos. 2 to 9 ran away from the spot prior to the arrival of the police. The Magistrate concerned has passed the order without going into the factual aspect of the complaint.It is prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 9 and learned A.G.A. submitted that, so far as the cutting of mango tree is concerned, the same did not belong to the revisionist and it was grown within the boundary of opp.parties. It was a non-fruited old mango tree. It is further submitted that even if it was so, the revisionist may have the grievance that, the said tree was cut down without prior permission from Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Archana Devi, Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Surendra Bahadur Singh Kaushal Kishor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the forest department, but it is not a case here. it is further submitted that the revisionist is a practicing advocate and used to threat and harass the opp. parties and tried to implicate them in a false case. 5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it can be seen that the mango tree that was cut down by the opp. parties did not belong to the revisionist, as it was standing in the boundary of opp. party nos. 2 to 9. The revisionist did not file any documentary evidence that the said mango tree was owned by the revisionist. If at all the opp. parties have cut down the said tree, it was open to the revisionist to take the matter before the appropriate court/ forum, but the revisionist rather indulged with opp. party nos. 2 to 9. The revisionist failed to produce any documentary evidence that the mango tree was owned by him or was standing within his own areas/ boundary. 6. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in the order passed by the court concerned. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. September 24, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 5193 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad