JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Saran and the Opposite Party to show cause why the order under sec. 145 Cr.P.C., should not be set aside as made without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the trying Magistrate had not any evidence before him of later date than 1903 and his jurisdiction in this case only extends to deciding who was in actual possession on the date of his proceeding. It is urged before us in showing course against the Rule that the mistake made by the Magistrate is merely a wrong inference or insufficient inference from the evidence that was before him, and this is an error of law and not a point of jurisdiction. But it is clearly a point which goes directly to the jurisdiction. There was evidence available. The Second Party was himself in Court. He had only to go into the witness box and say that the possession which is evidenced by these documents of 1903 is continuing up to the present date, and there being no rebutting evidence, the Magistrate would then have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Sec. 145, cl. 4 has clearly provided that the Magistrate shall not exercise that jurisdiction unless and until he has sufficient evidence before him. "The Magistrate shall then without reference to the merits of the claims of any of such parties to right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive the evidence produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary." Now it is obvious when the Magistrate has taken these documents and considered their effect, he was bound to hold that they were not sufficient proof that the possession so evidenced had continued up to the date of his proceeding, and he was found to take such further evidence as thereby became necessary; and in these sec. 145 proceedings where the Magistrate acts suo motu in order to prevent breaches of the peace in his District, it is most important that he should have the power of directing the course of the proceedings, and it is certainly a defect in the exercise of his jurisdiction when he leaves the case on the record absolutely unproved. 2. The order under sec. 2. The order under sec. 145, Cr.P.C., must therefore be discharged, and if necessary fresh proceedings should be taken according to law.