JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the petitioner has been ordered by the Municipal Magistrate to demolish certain sheds in a house abutting on the Central Avenue. The present Rule has been obtained by him on the ground that the Magistrate was wrong in administering oath to the petitioner, examining him as a witness and subjecting him to cross-examination. Before proceeding further with regard to the merits of the question raised by the ground on which the Rule was issued, it is necessary to observe that there is nothing in the record to show that the Magistrate put the petitioner into the box and forced him to take oath and subjected him to cross examination. From the judgment passed by the Magistrate in this case it may be presumed that the petitioner himself went to the box to support his case, namely, that the projections were of long standing. In one part of his judgment the "Magistrate says" the defendant gave evidence but did not say anything about this shed or the verandah though the defence witness Puran Mall spoke in his evidence that he has, been seeing the verandah "for the last 6 or 7 years". There is no sense in supposing that the Magistrate put the witness into the box for ev