JUDGMENT 1. In this case it appears that there was a dispute with regard to a bundh measuring 32 feet in length and one foot in breadth, and the parties were called upon under sec. 145, Cr. P.C., to produce their evidence as to their respective claims over the bundh in dispute and to the land on which the bundh stood. From first to last the Magistrate has dealt with the matter as if he had to try a question of title and not a mere question of possession. He has found not only to whom the land upon which the bundh was erected belonged but be has directed that the bundh should be removed. Moreover, he has directed that his order shall remain in force so long as it is not set aside in due course of law by a competent Civil Court under sec. 145, Cr. P.C., and he has directed one of the parties to pay costs to the other for damages done to crops as well as costs in the case. 2. A rule was granted to set aside these orders as not having been contemplated by sec. 145. The rule must be made absolute. In the first place, it was the duty of the Magistrate to inquire as to which party was in possession and not to treat the case as if the matter before him was solely one of title. In the second place, he had no power to make an order under sec. 145 directing the bundh to be removed. Further the Magistrate was not entitled to make an order under sec. 148 except the costs incurred for witnesses or pleader's fees or both, but treating the matter throughout as if it had been a civil case, he has awarded one party so much for damages to his crops. We think the entire order must be set aside including the order as to costs upon the grounds stated in the rule.