JUDGMENT 1. The order under sec. 144, C. Cr. P., is undoubtedly unjust to the Petitioners. Its operation, no doubt, expired on the day after this rule was granted. But nevertheless we think that we are bound to consider whether that order was properly passed inasmuch as its operation has been disastrous to the Petitioners because it has deprived them of the benefit which they received from the decree of the Civil Court against the very persons who obtained that order. It is, therefore, necessary not only to set aside that order but to endeavour to put the Petitioners in the same position that they occupied before that order was passed. It appears that the petitioners were the landlords of an Indigo factory in respect to a certain share in the estate. They have obtained a decree in the Civil Court for arrears of rent and for ejectment of their tenants in the Indigo factory and they have obtained possession in execution of their decree. After the order under sec. 144 was passed, an application was made to the District Magistrate to discharge that order and an inquiry was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to ascertain the exact facts of the matter. The result has been that the Magistrate has found that he is unable to ascertain from the Petitioners the exact lands of which they obtained possession under the decree of the Civil Court. Consequently the order under sec. 144 was affirmed under which the Petitioners were forbidden to interfere in any way with Mr. Carruthers (the manager of the Indigo factory and their former tenant and judgment-debtor) in his possession over the talooka. Now, it is difficult to understand how this should have been possible. The dispute was between the Petitioners who were at one time the landlords and the Indigo factory who were their tenants on some of these lands and who lost them under operation of the decree of the Civil Court. If any person could properly point out those lands, it would be the tenants. The tenants have not only obscured this matter but have been successful in obtaining an order under sec. 144, the effect of which has been to deprive the landlords of the lauds to which they were entitled under a decree against these very persons. The proper course, therefore, for us to take is to set aside the order under sec. The tenants have not only obscured this matter but have been successful in obtaining an order under sec. 144, the effect of which has been to deprive the landlords of the lauds to which they were entitled under a decree against these very persons. The proper course, therefore, for us to take is to set aside the order under sec. 144 and to declare that the Petitioners are in possession of the lands covered by their decree obtained from the Civil Court, and if any dispute shall arise between the Indigo factory, the judgment-debtors in that case and the Petitioners, the Magistrate should as far as possible endeavour to do justice in the case by maintaining possession of the Petitioners as against the Indigo factory. The Petitioners are undoubtedly in possession of some of these lauds under their decree against the Indigo factory, and if the manager of the Indigo factory disputes the possession or the right to possession of lands claimed by the Petitioners they are at least bound to state what lands were held by them as tenants of the Petitioners and the subject of the decree. If on the other hand the possession of the Petitioners should be in respect of only a share, they are entitled to possession of that share and to be protected in that possession from any aggression on the part of the judgment-debtors.