JUDGMENT 1. In this case we have read the explanation of the Magistrate and have heard the learned Pleader for the opposite party but we think that the Rule should be made absolute. It is inconvenient that proceedings u/s 107 and also u/s 144 or 145 should be going on at the same time. In this case it appears that Moti Lal Mandal, one of the petitioners, was the first to go to the Magistrate and apply for his assistance in the matter of possession of this land And the thatching of grass thereon. Then proceedings were taken and an injunction was issued u/s 144 and the petitioners were called on u/s 107, a procedure which in effect debarred them from giving evidence of the possession which they had been the first to allege. The injunction u/s 144 will, we understand, expire at the end of this month. It will be no more appropriate, if there is any present apprehension of a breach of the peace, for the Magistrate to take proceedings u/s 145 rather than u/s 107. The question of possession can then be gone into and properly decided. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and direct that Section 145 proceedings, if any proceedings are now necessary, be substituted for the proceedings u/s 107.