1. This Hula must be made absolute. It appears that the petitioner was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 448, I. P. C. on 23rd February 1931. On 7th March the opposite party filed a petition before the learned Presidency Magistrate, asking him to pass an order under Section 522, Sub-section (1), Criminal P.C., directing that he (opposite party) should be restored to possession of the room in question. Apparently, when this case came on for hearing the petitioner pointed out that an appeal had been filed against the order of conviction and he succeeded in inducing the learned Magistrate to adjourn the case until after the disposal of the appeal. On 3rd July 1931 the appeal was dismissed. The opposite party again applied apparently on 14th September 1931 for the order for which he had already asked on 7th March and on 2nd November 1931 the Magistrate made the order asked for. It is clear to us that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order as the section specifically limits his power to do so to the time when he convicts an accused person and to any time within one month from the date of such conviction. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the Magistrate's jurisdiction had long ceased to exist on 2nd November 1931 and it appears clear to us that no conduct on the petitioner's part can extend the jurisdiction conferred by the statute. 'We regret having to come to this decision as it appears to us on the facts that the petitioner is not entitled to possession of the room and that the opposite party is entitled to such possession though he cannot obtain it under the provisions of Section 522. All the trouble could have been avoided had the opposite party applied for the order at the time when the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, for it is clear under Sub-section (3), Section 522, that this Court had ample jurisdiction then to make the order required. The rule is made absolute and the order of the Magistrate is set aside.
M.C. Ghose, J.
2. I agree.