1. ' The appellant filed an application for ejectment in the Court of Rent Controller South Karachi bearing No,R.C. No,2034 of 1974 in respect of Shop No,AK. 5-18-10 which was at the appellate stage disposed of by a consent order dated 2-10-1989. The appellant tiled execution No,35 of 1987 against respondent No,2 who claiming to be in possession of a portion of the property in question bearing No,AK 5-18-A in his own right as owner thereof filed an application for being joined as party to the execution proceedings but it was dismissed by order dated 28-3-1988. The learned Controller held that respondent No,2 has no concern with the property in question. The appellant then approached the Excise and Taxation Department for seeking clarification in the matter. The Excise and Texation Officer held that Shop No,K5-1 S-18A was a portion of the property bearing No,K5-IS-10.
2. Consequently the appellant filed an application before the learned Controller seeking review of the order passed by him dated 6-4-1988 whereby the request of the appellant to issue writ of ejectment against respondent No,2 with police aid had been rejected on the ground that the respondent No,2 was not a party to the proceedings. The review application was also rejected. The appellant filed F.R.A. No,576 of 1988 which was also dismissed. In view of this order of High Court the appellant filed another application before the Controller for writ of possession against any person found in possession thereof. This application was also dismissed by the impugned order. During the course of arguments Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, the learned counsel for the respondent produced an order of the Controller dated 22-10-1989 which reads as follows: 22-10-1989 ' Parties' advocates are present. Advocate for D.H. Admits that he has received possession of premises for Baboo J.D. Since D.H. Has received possession for J.D. Baboo, 1, therefore, dispose of Execution application as satisifed. Sd/22-10-1989 (HUSSAIN BAKHSH KHOSO)
3. ' 1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH.
4. From this order it seems that the execution application for which the appeal arises has been disposed of. This appeal has therefore become infructuous and is dismissed as such.