By the Court.—This review petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 10.10.2014 whereby the Special Appeal has been allowed on the ground that the cause of action shown in the writ petition did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ashok Bajpai is that the application that was filed alongwith the Special Appeal for condoning the delay, had been disposed of but the orders passed thereon had not been signed. In the circumstances, if the delay had not been condoned, the appeal was incompetent and that the bench has committed an error in deciding the appeal finally without the delay having been condoned.

3. The second ground taken is that the summary Court martial was under challenge before the learned Single Judge and therefore a special appeal filed by the Union of India was not maintainable.

4. We have also heard Sri Nag, learned counsel for the appellant who has opposed this review petition and contends that firstly the proceedings arise out of the summary Court martial carried out under the Army Act and Rules which is a Central Act and as such the appeal was maintainable.

5. Having perused the High Court Rules, particularly Chapter V Rule 8 and the decisions in respect thereof, we find that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant about the maintainability of the appeal is unfounded, inasmuch as, the law governing the dispute falls within the Union list. Apart from this as of now, the matter would be entertainable by the Armed Forces Tribunal.

6. The second ground taken with regard to delay not having been condoned in the appeal, does attract our attention. The reason for this is that the order which has been transcribed dated 12.12.2006 on the overleaf of the delay condonation application is as follows :

“Hon’ble Jagdish Bhalla,J.

Hon’ble D.V. Sharma,J.

Reasons given in the affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is sufficient to delay the condone.

Accordingly the delay is condoned.

12.12.2006

Sd/- illegible”

7. The aforesaid order transcribed in pen ink does not bear the signatures or initials of the Hon’ble Judges. It however bears the initial of the Judgment Writer/Clerk. On the same day, the division bench which entertained the Special Appeal passed the following order which is transcribed (computer typed) and pasted on the memo of the appeal :

“Hon’ble Jagdish Bhalla,J.

Hon’ble D.V. Sharma,J.

It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the cause of action has accrued to the petitioner at Jodhpur where proceeding and Court Martial took place and finally at New Delhi where the order was passed.

Accordingly, no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

It has been further contended that in light of above argument the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

Admit. Issue notice.

Prima facie a case for interim relief is made out.

Till further orders of this Court the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge shall remain stayed.

12.12.2006 Sd/- (initials)

Kalim/599/06" Sd/- (initials)

8. On a perusal of the records it is clear that the division bench consciously passed an order of admitting the appeal on the same day which has been signed. However, the order passed and transcribed on the memo of the delay condonation application has not been signed.

9. Since the judgment of the learned Single Judge was stayed by the order aforesaid, the applicant-respondent petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3119 of 2007 before the Apex Court assailing the order dated 12.12.2006, quoted hereinabove.

10. It is not clear, as to whether, the order passed on the delay condonation application was also challenged or not but the Apex Court passed the following order dismissing the special leave petition :

“Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi

ORDER

We find t