JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. The facts of this case are as follows:— Hakim Girwar Lal and Chandra Bhan were candidates for, municipal election at Agra. Chandra Bhan was elected. Girwar Lal under the election rides, which appear to have been sanctioned by the Local Government, filed a petition to set aside the election and an inquiry was held and the petition filed by Girwar was dismissed but the order dismissing the petition directed that Girwar should pay Chandra Bhan the costs which he had been put to in resisting the petition which failed as already mentioned. In pursuance of this order awarding costs the property of Girwar was attached, and accordingly the present suit was brought to set aside so much of the order as awarded costs, and also the attachment of the plaintiff's property. The only possible ground upon which the validity of the order awarding costs can be supported is rule 40 of the Election Rules already referred to. Sub-rule 7 was most relied upon. This rule is as follows:— “The rules prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the evidence of witnesses, for procuring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and for the examination of witnesses, shall, as far as they can be made applicable, apply to the trial of a petition.” In my judgment there is nothing in this sub-rule or any other part of the rules, which gave the Magistrate any power whatever to award costs to be paid by the defeated petitioner, and I consider that the order of the Magistrate to this extent was made wholly without jurisdiction. In my opinion the defendant taking possession of the property of the plaintiff could not possibly justify under the terms of such an order and he would in fact be nothing more than a trespasser. It is perhaps doubtful as to whether or not there was any necessity for the plaintiff to seek to set aside the order of the Magistrate, and whether he was not entitled to treat the order so far as it awarded costs against him as waste paper. He, however, was clearly entitled to get rid of the attachment against his property, and I accordingly think that the order of the lower appellate Court was correct. He, however, was clearly entitled to get rid of the attachment against his property, and I accordingly think that the order of the lower appellate Court was correct. I suggested in the course of the argument that the plaintiff should consent to his suit being dismissed without costs and that the defendant should undertake to take no steps against his property. The case was then adjourned by consent. The plaintiff was willing to adopt my suggestion, but unfortunately so far as the defendant was concerned it came to nothing. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.