JUDGMENT 1. In this case the Magistrate appears to have passed an order under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Petitioner directing him to remove an obstruction from what is alleged to be a public path or road, to appear and show cause why the obstruction should not be removed. The Petitioner who appeared to show cause prayed for the appointment of a jury and a jury was accordingly appointed. It appears that on the day fixed for the meeting of the jurors, two of them failed to attend. Afterwards the foreman of the jury had to leave home for about a month and he therefore returned the papers of the case to the Magistrate with a request that another foreman might be appointed In his place. The Petitioner seems also to have appeared at the same time and to have asked that a fresh jury might be appointed. The Magistrate proceeding, however, strictly under the provisions of sec. 141, Cr. P.C, refused any further adjournment and made his original order absolute. We think that In so doing the Magistrate did not exercise a wise descretion. 2. There was on the part of the Petitioner a denial that the road was a public road and after what had occurred we think that the Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion should have appointed a fresh jury in compliance with the application of the Petitioner to decide whether in fact the trees etc., planted by the Petitioner which are said to have caused the obstruction on the public road in fact had caused such obstruction. We therefore make the rule absolute, set aside the order of the Magistrate under sec. 140, Cr. P.C, and direct that the case be sent back to him in order that he may dispose of It according to law.