Byers, J.

1. The only question which arises in this case is whether an order for restoration of possession can be made under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the criminal force attending the dispossession complained of is used not against the person dispossessed but against the property in his absence.

2. The petitioner relies on the decision in Roda v. Autar Singh A.I.R. 1938 Lah. 839 as authority for his * contention that the words " criminal force " used in Section 522 of the Code are not limited to criminal force against a person but are wide enough to include criminal force against the property, such as breaking open the locks on the doors of a house, as in the present case. Skemp, J., took the view that as the definitions in Sections 349 and 350, Indian Penal Code, consider force and criminal force only in their application to a person and say nothing about force as applied to a thing, the demolition of a wall or the breaking of a lock involved the use of criminal force. He held that the force used in such cases was criminal force because it involved the offence of mischief and that an order for restoration of possession based on the use of force of this