Burn, J.

1. There was nothing lo prevent the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate from drawing up a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure on the date on which he decided that the case was one properly falling under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not understand what he means when he says it was "impossible". The importance of this is that the question of possession has to be decided with reference to the date of the preliminary order (see Section 145(4) Criminal Procedure Code) and if there is no preliminary order the one question which the Magistrate has to decide cannot be decided. The learned Magistrate has referred to the date of the "cause of action" without explaining even what that date was. The learned Advocate for the Respondent contends that this was the date in September 1935 when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided to "convert" the case into one under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. This may be correct but it is far from self-evident. The learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary contends that the "cause of action" must have arisen when the dispute likely to occasion a breach of the peace came into existence, o