JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - I am of opinion that the Magistrate was not competent on the materials before him to bind down the Petitioners to keep the peace. The act which the Magistrate's proceedings were designed to prevent was the taking of the procession by a particular path. This is not an act which comes within the terms of sec. 107, Cr. P. C, as giving the Magistrate jurisdiction to call on the Petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down to keep the peace. The taking of a procession along a path is not by itself a breach of the peace, nor is it likely to disturb the peace, nor has it been shown in this case that the taking of the procession along the particular path was a wrongful act. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the Magistrate's order is wrong and should be set aside and I agree in making the rule absolute. Woodroffe, J. 2. The police-report shows that the Mohurrum party has in previous years passed through the land through which the applicants now claim to pass. If the road is a public road and one over which the applicants have a right to pass in procession, the fact that there are other passages through which they may pass does not affect that right, though it is to be here observed that it is claimed that this is the most convenient route to the Darga. If the Appellants have the right claimed it is obvious that they cannot be properly bound down because some one else proposes to interfere with that right. The proper course in such a case is to bind down the other party. To put it at the lowest it has not been shown that the Appellants are not entitled to do what they want to do. As I have said the alleged right has been exercised before and the Court has not negatived the right. All that has been said is that the Honorary Magistrate, Hafez Jahander Buksh, has an objection. To put it at the lowest it has not been shown that the Appellants are not entitled to do what they want to do. As I have said the alleged right has been exercised before and the Court has not negatived the right. All that has been said is that the Honorary Magistrate, Hafez Jahander Buksh, has an objection. This objection is stated to be not that the road is not a public road but his private property, but that he has a " strong objection " to the applicants " passing with festivity and drums from his sect's religious point of view." It is obvious that if the applicants have the right claimed they cannot be restrained from exercising it because of the Honorary Magistrate's religious objections if he really has any. He must like any one else tolerate the religious usages of his neighbours. Nor am I satisfied on the materials before me that ha could have any religious scruple. The Honorary Magistrate is stated to be a Sunni and the learned Counsel, who is well versed in these matters, tells us that the only sect which has ever objected to the Mohurrum pro-cession are the Khayites which sect is now extinct. I cannot of course decide what the applicants' rights are as against the Honorary Magistrate who is not a party to the application and anything that I say does not affect him. I am, however, entitled to deal with the right claimed so far as the applicants before me are concerned and so far as is necessary for the purpose of this application. For that limited purpose and on the materials before me I may say that there is nothing whatever to show that the applicants have not got the rights they claim and so far as the materials before me go they would rather indicate that they have such a right. But apart from this it must be affirmatively shown that the accused is about to do a wrongful act. Of this there is no evidence whatever. Or it must be shown that a party is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity. This has not been shown. But apart from this it must be affirmatively shown that the accused is about to do a wrongful act. Of this there is no evidence whatever. Or it must be shown that a party is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity. This has not been shown. The Sub-Inspector's report states that the party "are willing to pass silently through the passage with their Tajia " and that their object is that " they do not want to lose the privilege of passing through the same disputed road and therefore they have stopped passing with their Tajia pending your (that is the Magistrate's) order on the subject." Further the police-report says that there is a likelihood of breach of the peace between the Mohurrum party and the Honorary Magistrate. It requires at least two opposing parties to cause a breach of the peace and there can be none unless the Honorary Magistrate helps to create it. His intervention would not be justified unless the proposed action of the applicants threatened his legal rights. Whether he has any has not been shown. The Magistrate says that the accused admitted their liability to be bound down. What, however, happened was this--that the Magistrate ordered them to be detained and in order to release themselves the applicants put in a petition in which they stated (a) that they had not committed a breach of the peace, (b) that there was no likelihood of their breaking the peace and (c) that they would not carry the Tajias through the road in question. I do not think that this petition even if it was voluntarily made (which I greatly doubt) was sufficient, under circumstances stated, to support the order before the making of which admittedly no evidence was taken. Tajias ought to be carried on the 10th day after the Mohurrum and both that period and that of the Magistrate's order have passed. The Tajias may however, it is stated, be carried up to the 40th day and it is represented to us that any application which might be made to the Police in respect of the proposed procession would not be listened to as long as the Magistrate's order remains unreversed. I would therefore reverse that order and make the rule absolute.