JUDGMENT 1. The Rule was issued to show cause why the order passed under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go on with the proceedings after an application under sec. 526, Cr. P. C., had been made before him. The only point that requires to be Considered in this case is whether the provisions of sec. 526 have any application to proceedings under Chap. XII of the Code. 2. After carefully considering the cases, Lolit Mohun Moitra v. Surju Kanta Acharjee I. L. R. 28 Cal. 709 (1901), In re Pandurang Govind Pujari I. L. R. 25 Bom. 179 (1900), In re Arumuga Tegundan I. L. R. 26 Mad. 188 (1902), Gurudas Nag v. Gaganendra Nath Tagore 2 C. L. J. 644 (1905) and Jaggu Ahir v. Murli Shukul I. L. R. 34 All. 533 (1912), and on considering the effect of the provisions of sec. 435, Cr. P. C., in respect of proceedings under Chap. XII of the Code, we are of opinion that a party to a proceeding under sec. 145 is not entitled to an adjournment of the case under sub-sec. 8 of sec. 526. 3. That being our view, the order of the Magistrate refusing to postpone the case to enable the Petitioners to come up to this Court under sec. 526 was not improper and therefore the order made under sec. 145 is not without jurisdiction. We therefore discharge this Rule.