Order date depends on fair copy signature, not dictation note, and the issue was treated as factual.

The date of an adjudication order was examined where the order had been dictated on one date but the fair copy was signed later. The earlier notation that the order was dictated was not, by itself, treated as proof that the order had been passed. The operative date was taken to be the date of signature on the fair copy. On that basis, the issue was treated as one of fact rather than a question of law, and the reference was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the date on which the adjudication order was noted as dictated could be treated as the date of passing the order, and whether any question of law arose from that finding.

Analysis: The order was dictated on one date but the fair copy was signed later. The earlier notation of "Order Dictated" was not treated as sufficient by itself to show that the order had been passed. The operative date was held to be the date on which the fair copy was signed. On that basis, the controversy was regarded as one turning on facts rather than on a question of law.

Conclusion: No question of law arose. The reference was rejected.

---