JUDGMENT 1. We think that this rule must be made absolute. There was a dispute between two parties as to possession of certain specific plots of land. What the Deputy Magistrate did was to draw up a proceeding under sec. 107, Cr.P.C., which very much resembled one under sub-sec. (1), sec. 145, C.Cr.P., excepting that it was directed to only one party, that is, the party of the Petitioner; and he was called upon to shew cause why he should not be bound down to keep the peace. In the order of the Deputy Magistrate he disposes of questions of the same kind as would have had to be dealt with in a proceeding under sec. 145. He has dealt with it in a very similar manner; and as a result the Petitioner was required to keep the peace. We think that this is an order of a kind condemned by this Court in the case of Dole Gobind Chowdry v. Dhanu Khan ILR 25 Cal. 559 (1897) in which one of the parties to the dispute was bound down, and the other left free. The Deputy Magistrate in shewing cause cites the case of Tarujan Bibee v. Asamuddi Bepari 4 C.W.N. 426 (1900) as laying down that sec. 145 does not contemplate a dispute between a party claiming only joint possession, and another contesting such claim. We do not understand that that is in fact the nature of the dispute now before us. As we understand it, each party claims exclusive possession of certain specific plots of land. It would appear that if the Deputy Magistrate thought it necessary to take proceedings for the preservation of the peace, then proceedings should have been instituted under sec. 145, and not under sec. 107, certainly not against one party only under the latter section. We accordingly set aside the order made by the Deputy Magistrate on the 2nd September 1901, and make the rule absolute.