1. In this case we do not think that the proceedings have been conducted quite fairly to the first party. The proceedings were drawn up on 29th December 1917, 16th January being fixed as the date of the hearing. By that order the land was attached. The first party was not served, at any rate, until 8th January, so that more than half the time which was fixed by the order drawing up the proceeding had elapsed before he got notice of it. On the 16th the Mukhtar for the first party applied for time for his client to file his written statement. That was refused and the case went practically ex parte except for the cross-examination of some of the second party's witnesses by the Mukhtar. There was no immediate hurry in this matter, inasmuch, as the land was under attachment and, therefore, there was no immediate prospect of a breach of the peace. It may be noted that the Police report was in favour of possession of the first party: the order has given it to the second party. We think that the order should be set aside and the case sent back to the Magistrate for further enquiry and trial according to law.