JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule to show cause why a certain order under sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in so far as it directed certain pathways to remain in tact should not be set aside on the ground that part of the order was passed without jurisdiction. The Magistrate found that the disputed plot was in possession of the second party. But he directed that two pathways should remain in tact and that only the remainder of the disputed plot should remain in possession of the second party. We certainly cannot find anything in sec. 145 which gives a Magistrate a power to pass an order of this kind. It is argued that the Magistrate really found that the second party was in possession only of the remainder of the plot and was not in possession of the pathways. But on reading his judgment we do not think that this view can be sustained. He found the whole plot to be in the possession of the 2nd party. Moreover the mere fact that certain pathways existed over the disputed plot does not necessarily imply that the whole plot was not in the possession of the second party. 2. We think therefore that the Rule must be made absolute and that that portion of the order which directs the two pathways to remain in tack must be set aside.