' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 25-2-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11-7-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot whereby he ordered that execution of the order dated 13-5-1985, passed - by the learned Rent Controller, Sialkot in respect of Property No,3/413 situated at Khadam Ali Road, Sialkot be made in accordance with the site plan attached with the ejectment application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No,1 in pursuance of the execution proceedings has already taken over possession of the land bearing No,3/41.3 and now under the garb of execution proceedings of the order of ejectment dated 13-5-1985 passed by the Rent Controller wants to encroach upon the petitioner's Ihata bearing No,3/41.2 and the petitioner apprehends its demolition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of the order sheet dated 8-10-1987 would show that the petitioner made a statement before the learned Rent Controller that execution of the ejectment order be made in accordance with the site plan attached to the ejectment applicaiton. Moreover, the learned counsel for petitioner also made a statement before the learned Rent Controller on 22-6-1989 that within 10 days the petitioner will, take away his Malba from the disputed place. Reading these statements together would indebutably show that the petitioner has agreed that the execution of the order of the learned Rent Controller be made in accordance with the site plan attached with the ejectment application and, therefore, he could not be permitted to resile from the said statements.
4. When faced with this, Mr. Muzammil Khan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the statement dated 8-10-1987 was based on misrepresentation and secondly its contents were not read over to the petitioner at the time of recording the statement. It was recorded in the absence of his counsel and an application was moved to the learned Trial Court complaining the aforesaid allegations whereupon this statement was never acted upon and as such on 14-3-1988, issue regarding the boundary of the property in dispute was framed in the presence of the parties on which both the parties led their evidence and those statements were not relied upon in the orders impugned by both the Courts below and, therefore, those statements cannot be relied upon here.
The contention is devoid of any force. The presumption of regularity is attached to the Court proceedings. The petitioner has failed to establish that the statement made by the petitioner on 8- 10-1987 was based on misrepresentation.
5. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.