JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was issued, calling upon the Magistrate of the District of Backergunge to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Perozepur, dated the 17th January 1903, under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing that the first party should continue in possession of the disputed land, until evicted therefrom in due course of law, should not be set aside on the ground, first, that the said order was made without awaiting the report of the Commissioner appointed to make a local investigation, and, secondly, that the Petitioners had not notice of the place of trial in sufficient time to enable them to procure the attendance of their witnesses. We think that the first ground must fail, because it is clear that no Commissioner had actually been appointed. An application had been made on the 5th December 1902 for the appointment of a Commissioner and a letter had been written on the 8th December 1902 to the proposed Commissioner, but no reply was ever received from him and no order was passed asking him to take up the enquiry. The first ground upon which the rule was granted therefore fails. 2. We think, however, that the second ground has been substantiated and that the Petitioners had no notice of the place of trial in sufficient time to procure the attendance of their witnesses. It appears that the Deputy Magistrate was moving about from, place to place and that the Petitioners appeared at the headquarters of the Perozepur sub-division, but did not succeed in ascertaining where the Deputy Magistrate was holding his camp. In these circumstances they could not appear before him with their witnesses. For these reasons we make this rule absolute and set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated the 17th January 1903.