ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The order under appeal was passed in an appeal (CIA No. 40 of 1995) by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The order states some facts, records the submission on behalf of the second respondent that the appeal was not maintainable, and proceeds thus :

"The records of this appeal state that appellants counsel has been taking adjournments and according to the learned counsel for the respondents, only to delay the grant of relief to Respondent 2.

Considering the overall circumstances and that Respondent 2 had been struggling for compensation for the last more than five years of his property which was admittedly taken over by the security forces and the tactics adopted by the appellant, a request for adjournment sought by the Government Advocate, Mr. Geelani, is rejected and this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution,"

4. Learned counsel for the second respondent was at pains to convince us that the appeal had been dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. The submission is without merit. The order under appeal records a submission to that effect but gives no finding thereon.

5. The appeal was dismissed for this reason : "...