JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent. 2. The short delay of 16 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. Despite the fact that there were three earlier orders of this Court including a stop order dated 30.6.2009, no counter-affidavit was filed, nor any application seeking extension of time for filing counter-affidavit was moved. A mere oral prayer was made for granting further time to file counter-affidavit. 4. There is a distinction between an order granting time for filing couner affidavit or for doing something else and a stop order for the same purpose. If simply time has been granted, it can be enlarged or further time can be granted on oral prayer. But if a stop order has been passed, and still further time is being sought, a proper application supported by an affidavit has to be moved for this purpose giving an explanation, why despite the stop order, a counter-affidavit was not filed or the particular thing was not done within the time fixed by the stop order. If this distinction is not kept in mind, stop orders of this Court would be reduced to a mockery and would cease to have any meaning. 5. Again while granting further time, it is open to the Court to impose conditions subject to which time is enlarged. The appellate Court can interfere only if the condition imposed is unreasonable or so onerous as to require the appellate Court to intervene. 6. It appears that by the order dated 3.1.2013, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted, further time subject to the condition that Rs. 5000/- be paid as costs for not filing counter-affidavit despite the three orders including the stop order. It was further directed that the cost would be paid from the own pocket of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Finance Controller of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. 7. Despite the FAX communication of this order dated 3.1.2003, a mere recall application was filed without filing a counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the recall application was rejected by another order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.1.2013. 8. 7. Despite the FAX communication of this order dated 3.1.2003, a mere recall application was filed without filing a counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the recall application was rejected by another order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.1.2013. 8. It has been stated in paragraph No. 15 of the affidavit in this appeal that counter-affidavit was actually filed by the respondent No. 3, who is the appellant before us, sometime in the fourth week of January 2013. However, no explanation has been given as to why the counter-affidavit was not filed alongwith the recall application. 9. In the circumstances, we leave it open to the appellant to move a fresh application for modification of the order dated 3.1.2013, setting out the circumstances explaining the delay and we leave open to learned Single Judge to consider the same and to pass such appropriate orders as he may deem fit, if such an application is filed. 10. Subject to the above, we decline to interfere in this appeal. ——————