JUDGMENT Ellis, J. - In this case a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why an order; purporting to be made under sec. 142 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mr. A.R. Khan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kishoreganj on the 21st January, 1948, should not be set aside. The matter arises over a bund which apparently separates the waters of two beels. A dispute having arisen in connection with the existence of this bund, the Sub-Divisional Officer visited the locality; on the 15th January, 1948, started a case against the Petitioners under sec. 76 (b) of Bengal Act II of 1882 and also directed that proceedings should be drawn up under sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The notices under sec. 133 of the Code called on the Petitioners to remove the bund and "restore it to its former position or stage befitting the same for easy public thoroughfare" or to move the Court on the next day, the 16th January, 1948, to have the order set aside or amended. It is not surprising to find that when these notices came to be served the police officers to whom they were sent reported that the time was much too short for them to be served and for the parties to appear in Court to show cause against the order on the 16th January, 1948. Thus one of the endorsements reports that the notices were received at the police station at 18-00 hours on 15th January, 1948, and were served on 16th January, 1948 from 8-30 to 14-30 hours. So it was quite impossible for the recipients of these notices to appear in Court on 16th January, 1948, to show cause against the order. 3. On 21st January, 1948, proceedings under sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came up in the Court of Mr. A. Latif, a Magistrate of the First Class. We do not understand how they came up in his Court, because there is no record of the case being transferred to him at all and, as the order sheet shows, the next order on the same day was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer himself. So it does not appear that Mr. A. Latif was in charge of the general file and dealt with the case in that capacity. 4. On 21st January, 1948, Mr. So it does not appear that Mr. A. Latif was in charge of the general file and dealt with the case in that capacity. 4. On 21st January, 1948, Mr. A. Latif thought that immediate action was necessary and so he directed that the case should be put up before the Sub-Divisional Officer that day for necessary orders is (sic) the matter was very urgent. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer then recorded the following order: "The party have disobeyed my order dated 15th January, 1948, by not removing the bund by the day fixed." As we have already shown, as they did not receive the notices in time it was impossible to comply with the order. The order goes on to say "I, therefore, acting under sec. 142 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, order O/c Kishorganj P.S. and O/c Hussainpur P.S. to get the "Bandh" removed at once and report compliance by 31st January, 1948." It is this order the validity of which is now canvassed in these proceedings. Mr. Huq submits that his objection is perhaps a technical one but even so it cannot be overlooked. Under sec. 142 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Magistrate making an order under sec. 133 of the Code considers that immediately measures are necessary he may issue an injunction to the person against whom the order was made as may be required to obviate or prevent immediate danger or injury pending determination of the matter. In the present case the Magistrate did not issue any injunction of the kind required by this section. He proceeded to take action under sec. 142 (2) of the Code which he was only entitled to do provided the person against whom the injunction was ordered failed to obey that injunction. Mr. Huq's objection is well-founded and must be sustained. The Rule must accordingly be made absolute, the order passed under sec. 142 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the two police officers to remove the bund at once is set aside. Amin Ahmed, J. I agree.