S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, C.J.
1. This is an application against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (Judge Small Causes Court) Srinagar, dated 3.6.1971 holding that the non-applicant was in possession of the room in dispute.
2. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate and also of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar and I find that, the Magistrate has very carefully dealt with the evidence of parties and has rightly rejected the evidence of the petitioner. Mr. Hak appearing for the petitioner in support of the rule submits that the trial court has misconstrued the rent deed and actually, misread it because it pertained not only to the two storeyed house but also to the premises in question. The learned Magistrate has come to a clear finding of fact that no evidence wag led by the petitioner to prove the execution of the rent deed which was inadmissible in evidence. If the rent-deed was inadmissible in evidence it could not be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. Thus any observation made by the learned Magistrate regarding the contents of the rent deed would have to be excluded from the consideration. The entire case hinges on the appreciation of evidence and there is no error apparent in the order of the learned Magistrate.
3. There is as such no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed and the rule discharged.