JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule has been issued on the District Magistrate of Burdwan and the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Katwa, dated the 21st June 1906, should not be set aside, and why he should not, if there be still a likelihood of the breach of the peace, be directed to institute two separate proceedings with respect to two different plots of land giving definite boundaries. We have been referred to the order of the Deputy Magistrate and what we find he has done is as follows. There was a dispute with reference to a ghat and its surrounding lands. And he, after having heard the evidence of the witnesses, has come to the conclusion that one party was in possession of the masonry ghat, the raised ground, and the houses and huts adjoining, and he has maintained them in possession of that portion of the disputed property. He has found that the other party was in possession of the rest of the lands and he has maintained them in possession. This order does not seem to us to be one which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass. The case of The Katras Jherria Coal Company v. Shib Kristo Daw I. L. R. 22 Cal. 297 (1880), on which the learned vakil relies in support of the rule has, in our opinion, no application to the facts of the present case. In that case two parties were disputing about a colliery, and, in the course of the dispute, one party had got possession of a portion of the colliery, and the other, possession of the rest, and the Magistrate passed an order maintaining each party in possession of the portion which during the course of the dispute he had obtained. This Court set aside that order on the ground that the effect of it was to deprive both parties of any beneficial enjoyment of the colliery, and, under these circumstances, this Court held that the proper order for the Magistrate to have passed was one under sec. 146 attaching the property. In the case before us the facts are different. The Deputy Magistrate has found that one party was in possession of a certain portion of the land in dispute and the other party of another portion. 146 attaching the property. In the case before us the facts are different. The Deputy Magistrate has found that one party was in possession of a certain portion of the land in dispute and the other party of another portion. The possession of one so far as we can judge will not interfere with the enjoyment of possession of the remaining portion by the other. 2. Under these circumstances we do not think that the order was one which Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass. We, therefore, discharge the rule.