JUDGMENT 1. This rule was granted to show cause why the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jamui made on the 25th January last, directing that notices under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should issue against the second party, the Petitioners, ordering them not to interfere with the land in dispute without the order of a competent Court, and also the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jamui on the 10th February last directing that the order made by him on the 25th January last shall be put up for renewal when it has been in force for two months, should not be set aside as being made without jurisdiction. We think that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made on the 25th January was not such an order as he was competent to make under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not limited in time, but on the face of it purports to be of the nature of a perpetual injunction. 2. As regards the second order of the 10th February, the Joint Magistrate has explained that that order was not a part of the record, but was simply addressed to the peshkar of his Court with the object that the case should not be lost sight of, and that further steps should be taken if the dispute still continued. We are obliged to say that we cannot regard the explanation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with reference to this second order as satisfactory. On the face of it the object of the order was that the original order under sec. 144 should be renewed after it had been in force for two months. No order of renewal could be made, and we understand that no order of the kind has in fact been made. In the meantime the original order has lapsed under the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 144. In any case that order cannot in any way affect the rights of the parties whatever those rights may be; but in order to prevent any risk of misunderstanding we make the rule absolute and formally set aside the order.