JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners in this case have been convicted of wrongfully restraining the complainant by obstructing a path along which he was entitled to pass. They have obtained a Rule from this Court on the District Magistrate to show cause why this conviction should not be set aside on the ground that the complainant's allegations are not borne out by the facts: and also to show cause why the order that has been passed under sec. 522 should not be set aside. The first ground in our opinion fails. But we have heard the learned Vakil who appears for the Petitioners on another point. It appears that the accused applied for a local enquiry and the Magistrate thereupon ordered a local enquiry by a pleader as if he were directing the issue of a commission in a civil case. The pleader ultimately reported, but no notice was taken either of this report or of any evidence on which it may have been based. It appears to us that the accused must have been misled by this procedure. The learned Vakil who appears for the Opposite Party tells us that he is prepared to argue the point and we think we can deal with the question without issuing another Rule. The Magistrate clearly had no authority to issue this commission, and it is natural to suppose that the accused must have been seriously misled by it and must have thought that when the Magistrate had ordered an enquiry he would pay some attention to the results of it. In such circumstances, they might well have refrained from producing witnesses. We think therefore that the accused should have a further opportunity of adducing evidence. 2. As regards the order under sec. 522 it is not in our opinion sustainable. There is no finding in this case that the complainant has been dispossessed of any immoveable property. The Rule will accordingly be made absolute in these terms and the case will go back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. The accused will be given an opportunity of adducing such evidence as they desire.