JUDGMENT 1. These two rules were heard together They arise out of a proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P.C., instituted In respect, of two mouzahs Aktail and Darajpore. With regard to the former the Magistrate made an order under sec. 146 (1) attaching it until a competent Court should determine the rights of the parties to it and he directed that each party should bear their own costs. 2. With regard to the other, he found that it was in possession of the second party and he made an order retaining them in possession until evicted there from in due course of law. 3. Both parties complain of the order attaching mouzah Aktail, and each obtained a rule on the ground that the Magistrate had in his judgment found that both parties were in possession of the mouzah and therefore he was not competent to attach the land under sec. 146 (2) which applies only where the Magistrate decides that none of the parties were at the time referred to in the section in possession or when he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them were then in possession. It is necessary therefore to consider what has really been found by the Magistrate as to possession, for the finding is not altogether clear. Both parties it should be mentioned claimed to be in possession through the raiyats by the collection of rents and the Magistrate very rightly considered that the ease must " be decided upon the test of the collection of rents from the raiyats." In terms he found that both parties were at the time of the order under sec. 146 (2) realizing rents from some of the raiyats of the village, but he went on to say that he therefore decided that neither party was in actual and undisputed possession of the mouzah, and accordingly he made the order attaching the mouzah. 4. The possession contemplated by sec. 145 and as to which the Magistrate was called upon to decide is actual possession of the subject of dispute. The power or competency of the Magistrate to interfere depends on the very fact that the possession of the land in question is in dispute. 4. The possession contemplated by sec. 145 and as to which the Magistrate was called upon to decide is actual possession of the subject of dispute. The power or competency of the Magistrate to interfere depends on the very fact that the possession of the land in question is in dispute. So that in no case can it be said that any one is in undisputed possession, unless, indeed the proceeding have been instituted under an entire misapprehension as to there having been a dispute. It seems to us therefore that the Magistrate has really found that both parties are in possession and that sec. 146 (2) did not apply to the special circumstances of the case. It was possible for him to have found what particular holdings were in possession of each party though this might have entailed a somewhat special and perhaps lengthy enquiry but it was not open to him after finding as he did, that each party was in possession of different portions of the land to decide that neither party was in possession, for that is to decide contrary to the facts found. The intention of the Legislature is obviously to maintain the status quo. Under these circumstances we consider that the order attaching the mouzah must be set aside. The rule obtained by the first party also dealt with the order directing them to pay Rs. 600 as costs to other party. In the explanation submitted by him the Magistrate has explained the method by which the costs were assessed. The entire costs incurred by the second party amounted, he said, to Rs. 3,546 and inasmuch as the area of Darajpore was on one-sixth of the total area in dispute he granted them roughly one-sixth of that amount, or Its. 600. A wide discretion as to costs is given to a Magistrate by sec. 148 (3) and under the present Code this Court has no power in revision to interfere with his exercise of that discretion. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that out of the sum of Rs. 3,546, Rs. 2,000 represent fees at the rate of Rs. 200 per day paid to a pleader brought from Faridpore to the District of Maldah where the disputed laud is situated and where the enquiry took place. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that out of the sum of Rs. 3,546, Rs. 2,000 represent fees at the rate of Rs. 200 per day paid to a pleader brought from Faridpore to the District of Maldah where the disputed laud is situated and where the enquiry took place. Moreover the costs said to have been incurred included 4 days' travelling and other expenses paid to that pleader. We desire to point out for the guidance of Magistrate that in our opinion additional costs incurred for extra fees and travelling and other expenses of a like nature incurred by reason of bringing pleaders or counsel from a distance ought not to be allowed. Otherwise a rich party by the employment on high fees of pleaders or counsel from a distance might have the effect of preventing a poorer party taking part in the proceedings lest, he might, in the case of an adverse finding, have to pay an enormous bill of costs incurred by his opponents. We are not in a position however to disturb the order as to costs in the present case.