The notice accordingly states that at a place bearingassessment No. 25 “an unauthorised structure has been put up”. Itdoes not require a fertile imagination to construe that in placebearing No. 25 an unauthorised structure has been set up – is
qualifies the place on which the
the word

clearly descriptive of another structure put up on

Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2004] 2 Sri L.R
unauthorised structure is put up attached to the notice is a sketchP1 which clearly describes the location of the unauthorisedstructure and states that No. 25 is the existing building and 25A asthe new building in the arcade of the premises bearing No. 25.Furthermore, to enable more clarity of though on the matter. The1st respondent has clearly accepted the fact that:

This Court does not see any further necessity to consider thisobjection any longer as it would be tantamount to procrastinatingfurther on the matter.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to overrule the finding of thelearned High Court Judge on this point and hold that the notice isclear and unambiguous and descriptive of the unauthorisedbuilding to be demolished even to the most mentally negligible.
Subjecting the 2nd objection to judicial consideration, that thepower of authority is not properly delegated to the 2nd respondent.It is worthwhile to address one’s attention to document ‘Y markedin the Magistrate’s Court proceedings along with the applicationmade by the 2nd respondent clearly stating that he is the

There is a presumption in Law as to the regularity of theperformance of official Acts. Furthermore, it is puerile to split hairson mere technicalities, prevaricate to defeat the ends of Justice andtake refuge in infantile assertions and persist in litigation Adnauseam. When the intention of the legislature is crystal clear andmanifestly apparent that due compliance with the imperativeprovisions of the law has been acquiesced with.
In conclusion it must be observed that it is regrettable that
CA Trustees of the Sir Mohamed Macan Marker Trust v Fernando 357
and another (Abeyratne, J.)
when even the legal representatives of litigants attempt to takeadvantage of typing errors in a document to conjure imaginaryobjections with a view to prolonging the duration of a case, thisCourt cannot take cognizance of trivialities and cooperate in theattainment of this objective.
Accordingly, the second objection upheld by the learned HighCourt Judge of Colombo is also overruled and this Court thereforevacates and sets aside the Order of the learned High Court Judgedelivered on the 18th of November 1996 and furthermore permitand order hereby the demolishing of the unauthorised structure25/A, Mudalige Mawatha erected on the premises bearing No. 25,Mudalige Mawatha.
NANAYAKKARA, J. – I agree.
Application allowed.
Order of the Magistrate restored.