Rafique, J.
1. The facts which have given rise to this application in revision are as follows: One Daryai Singh was the owner of certain fields. He gave a lease in respect of them to Bikram Singh and subsequently gave a mortgage in respect of the same fields to Karam Singh, the brother of Bikram Singh. After the execution of the lease and the mortgage-deed Daryai Singh sold the said fields to one Sardar Singh. There was a dispute between the vendee on the one side and the lessee and the mortgagee on the other, as to the possession of the fields. Sardar Singh was successful in the end and obtained a decree from this Court to the effect that the lease to Bikram Singh was void and ineffectual but that the mortgage was valid. After the decree of the High Court, Sardar Singh redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession over the fields in question through the Civil Court. Sardar Singh died sometime after the redemption of the mortgage. The son of Sardar Singh let the fields in question to some of the applicants. The latter were resisted in their attempt to sow the fields by Bikram Singh and his friends, who declined to give up possession and maintained that the lease in his favour gave him the right to retain the fields. The Police, finding that there Was a likelihood of a breach of the peace, sent up both parties, namely, the applicants and Bikram Singh and his friends to the Magistrate with a report that security should be taken for keeping the peace under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case came up before the learned Joint Magistrate, who made an order on the 19th of December 1918 directing both parties to give bonds for keep ting the peace. Bikram Singh went up in revision to the Sessions Judge from the order of the 19th of December 1918 and his application was rejected on the 10th of February 1919. Before the disposel of the application by the Sessions Judge, Bikram Sirgh filed an application to the District Magistrate which was either by way of revision or appeal. The application was filed on the 8th of February 1919. The learned District Magistrate went into the merits of the case and considered the rights of the parties and came to the conclusion that the bonds taken from Bikram Singh and his friends should be cancelled and those taken from the applicants before this Court should be maintained and that the latter should go to the proper Court to have their rights determined.
2. The applicants before this Court contend that the order of the learned District Magistrate is not according to law, though it purports to have been made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I think that the contention for the applicants is correct. The learned District Magistrate has disposed of the order of the 19th of December 1918 as if he were sitting as an Appellate Court. The proper course open to the learned Magistrate was to have considered the application of Bikram Singh and others as an application for revision and to have recommended to this Court the cancellation of the bonds of Bikram Singh and his friends, if he thought it proper to do so. The case of Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh 18 Ind. Cas. 351; 35 A. 103; 11 A.L.J. 16; 14 Cr. L.J. 63 is in point. I allow the application and set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate, dated the 12th of March 1919.