JUDGMENT 1. This rule was granted to show cause why the order of the Joint Magistrate directing that possession of certain disputed land together with the crops be made over to the second party, should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction, being made without evidence on the erroneous assumption that in their written statement the first party denied claim to possession of the land in dispute whereas they merely denied the existence of a dispute such as was likely to cause a breach of the peace and objected to an alleged defect of parties. The Joint Magistrate in showing cause has stated that on the day when the case came on for hearing the muktear of the first party orally denied their claim to the disputed land, and it was on the strength of that admission that the order was made. A counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party is to the same effect and sets forth the same circumstances. It appears that in fact at that time a prosecution had been undertaken against the Petitioners with reference to the title-deeds upon which they based their claim to the lands in question in these proceedings. We think that upon these facts the Joint Magistrate was justified in disposing of the case as he did. Although it is necessary ordinarily to record evidence in a case under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before passing final orders, we think it cannot be said that it is indispensable to do so when the case is completely given up by the opposite party. We think that an admission made by the legal practitioner conducting a case is sufficient in a quasi-civil proceedings of this nature. The rule is discharged.