JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that the applicant by filing this application seeks condonation of 273 days delay in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment dated 30.11.2018 and Decree passed on the same date by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 66/2017. 2. Referring to the application for condonation of delay, the learned counsel submits that since there was some unresolved issues between the counsel for the applicant/appellant and its standing counsel before the Trial Court, the standing counsel concerned did not appear before the Trial Court and the Trial Court passed Order dated 13.12.2017 drawing ex parte proceeding against the applicant. He submits that the Trial Court thereafter proceeded to dispose of the Money Suit vide its Judgment & Decree dated 30.11.2018. The applicant then came to know about the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 30.11.2018 sometime in the mid-week of February, 2019 and although the standing counsel was contacted, he was still protesting and therefore, no action could be taken up by the applicant. Subsequently, when there was a change of hands in the post of Commissioner, Aizawl Municipal Corporation (AMC) on 14.10.2019, a deliberation took place between the AMC and their standing counsel and following which, steps for preferring the appeal could be initiated. 3. Be it stated herein that after the filing of the instant condonation of delay application, the learned counsel for the applicants on 11.03.2020 informed this Court that the parties were making an attempt to settle the matter out of Court and therefore, some time may be granted for the purpose. Accordingly, time was granted and later on, on 17.03.2020, the learned counsel for the applicant even prayed for a weeks’ time to file additional affidavit incorporating the final bill prepared by the applicant on 13.03.2020. It may be noted that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the amount due for certain works performed by the respondent/plaintiff. As permitted, the applicant filed an affidavit on 30.07.2020 incorporating the final bill prepared by them. 4. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff today however submits that there is a vast difference between the bill prepared by the respondent/plaintiff which was decreed by the Court below and the bill prepared by the applicant as incorporated in the affidavit dated 30.07.2020. 4. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff today however submits that there is a vast difference between the bill prepared by the respondent/plaintiff which was decreed by the Court below and the bill prepared by the applicant as incorporated in the affidavit dated 30.07.2020. He submits that the amount shown in the bill cannot be acceptable to the respondent/plaintiff. 5. In view of the above position, it only appears that the attempt for amicable settlement has failed and that the applicant will have to satisfy this Court that there are good grounds and proper explanation to convince this Court to condone the delay. 6. This Court vide Order dated 20.11.2020, not being satisfied with the manner in which the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal had been made, granted the applicant an opportunity to file additional affidavit to come up with proper explanation for the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal. Pursuant thereto, the applicant filed an additional affidavit on 18.01.2021. 7. Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the statements made in the application as well as the additional affidavit dated 18.01.2021, Court may condone the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal. He also submits that the applicant cannot be put on the same footing with an individual. He submits that as there are various formalities to be observed in the process of filing the appeal and that it is time consuming. As such, Court may condone the delay. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 . 8. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the sole respondent, on the other hand, submits that applicant has failed to come up with proper explanation for the delay in filing the connected appeal. 8. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the sole respondent, on the other hand, submits that applicant has failed to come up with proper explanation for the delay in filing the connected appeal. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, the learned counsel submits that although the applicant has enclosed a certificate given by their standing counsel in the application stating that he did not make his appearance in Money Suit No. 66/2017 before the Trial Court in protest and as a means to pressurize the applicant, the same does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, no specific date has been mentioned by the said standing counsel as to when such meetings took place to discuss matters regarding drafting fees and appearance fees, etc. He submits that it is not the case of the applicant that they were not aware of the fact that the standing counsel was not appearing before the Trial Court on their behalf and that the same can be easily made out from the certificate prepared by their standing counsel. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that at any rate, the applicant cannot put the blame upon their counsel for not filing the appeal on time, inasmuch as, they themselves have their responsibility to keep track of the matter. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Order dated 18.12.2020 passed in SLP(C) No. 19059/2020 (Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & ors. (ii) Judgment dated 15.10.2020 in SLP(C) No. 9217/2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Bherulal). 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 10. As may be noticed, the number of days delay sought to be condoned is 273 days delay. The impugned judgment & decree was passed on 30.11.2013 in Money Suit No. 66/2017 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl and against which, the applicant has filed an appeal and the present application on 29.11.2019. The explanation made by the applicant in their application more particularly at paragraph Nos. 3 to 10 may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “3. That as mentioned in the connecting appeal petition. Since there were some issues between the counsels and the appellant there standing counsel handling the case failed to appear before the ld. The explanation made by the applicant in their application more particularly at paragraph Nos. 3 to 10 may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “3. That as mentioned in the connecting appeal petition. Since there were some issues between the counsels and the appellant there standing counsel handling the case failed to appear before the ld. Trial Court and ex-parte proceeding was drawn vide order date 13.12.2017 Copy of Certificate issued by Standing Counsel AMC in annexed at Annexure-II 5. After that on 30.11.2018 the impugned judgment and order challenged in the connected appeal petition was issued. 6. That the Appellant/Petitioner then, approached the standing counsel who handled the case before the Ld. Trial Court in the mid week of February, 2019 (the exact date which he cannot recollect now) and was informed that an Appeal needs to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the standing counsel as aforesaid was still protesting with regard to the issues pertaining to the fee structure, no action was taken by the appellant. 7. That after change in the Commissioner at the AMC, on 15.10.2018 there was a proper discussion of the matter with the standing counsel appearing before this Hon’ble Court necessary steps for preffering appeals were taken. 8. That on 21.11.2019 certified true copy of impugned judgment and order was applield for and the same was issued on 27.11.2019 and the connecting RFA was ready to filing on 28.11.2019. 9. That for the reason stated above there was a delay of 273 days in filing the Connected Appeal. Hence, this Application for Condonation of the said delay. 10. That the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above clearly shows that there is no wilful and deliberate delay on the part of the Appellant/Petitioner in not filing the connected Appeal in time.” 11. As already stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court upon not being satisfied in the manner in which the explanation for the delay had been made, gave an opportunity to the applicant to file an additional affidavit and accordingly, the applicant filed additional affidavit on 18.01.2021. The relevant portion of the statements made in the additional affidavit i.e. paragraph Nos. 1 to 12 may be abstracted herein below for ready perusal:- “1. That the Petitioner/Applicant filed RFA before this Hon’ble Court and the same is pending admission and delay is yet to be condoned. 2. The relevant portion of the statements made in the additional affidavit i.e. paragraph Nos. 1 to 12 may be abstracted herein below for ready perusal:- “1. That the Petitioner/Applicant filed RFA before this Hon’ble Court and the same is pending admission and delay is yet to be condoned. 2. That the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the Appellant to file Additional Affidavit explaining in a much detailed manner the delay of 273 days in filing the connected appeal vide Order dated 20.11.2020. 3. That the period limitation for filing the connected Appeal expired on 28.02.2019 and the connected Appeal has been filed on 29.11.2019 as such there is a delay of 273 days in filing the same. 4. That as mentioned in the connecting appeal petition. Since there were some issues between the counsels and the appellant, the standing counsel handling the case failed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court and ex-parte proceeding was drawn vide Order dated 13.12.2017. Copy of Certificate issued by Standing Counsel AMC is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure I. 5. After that on 30.11.2018 the impugned judgment and order challenged in the connected appeal petition was issued. 6. That the Appellant/Petitioner then approached the Standing Counsel who handled the case before the Ld. Trial Court in the mid week of February, 2019 (the exact date which he cannot reflect now) and was informed that an Appeal needs to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the Standing Counsel as aforesaid was still protesting with regard to the issues pertaining to the fee structure, no action was taken by the appellant. 7. That certain verbal communications were made in connection with the instant appeal between March 2018 to September, 2019 by the Appellant and their Standing Counsel, the main topic being unable to process the appeal due to protest by Standing Counsel and the standing counsel even submitted their proposal for their remuneration to the appellant, however the same bears no fruitful result. 8. That after change in the Commissioner at the AMC, on 14.10.2019 there was a proper discussion of the matter with the standing counsel appearing before the Hon’ble Court necessary steps for preferring appeals were taken. 9. That even though the issues pertaining to the fee structure of the standing counsel was resolved. 8. That after change in the Commissioner at the AMC, on 14.10.2019 there was a proper discussion of the matter with the standing counsel appearing before the Hon’ble Court necessary steps for preferring appeals were taken. 9. That even though the issues pertaining to the fee structure of the standing counsel was resolved. However, the final and correct bill in connection with the connecting RFA could not be completed by the appellant. 10. That the final bill in connection with the instant RFA was awaited and the matter was kept pending for filing till the month of October, 2019. However, since the number of days for delay in filing the connecting RFA kept on piling up, hence there was no choice but to file the connecting appeal without the final bill. It may be submitted that, the final bill was submitted to this Hon’ble Court in the form of Additional Affidavit during pendency of this instant RFA. 11. That on 21.11.2019 certified true copy of impugned judgment and order was applied for and the same was issued on 27.11.2019 and the connecting RFA was ready for filing on 28.11.2019. 12. That for the reason stated above there was a delay of 273 days in filing the connected Appeal. Hence, this Application for Condonation of the said delay.” 12. From the above abstracts, it may be seen that there was some issue between the applicant and their standing counsel with regard to the fee structure payable to the standing counsel. In protest, the standing counsel did not make his appearance before the Trial Court and the Trial Court vide Order dated 13.12.2017 passed an order drawing ex parte proceedings against the applicant. Thereafter, the judgment and decree was finally passed on 30.11.2018. The applicant has nowhere explained as to what had transpired between 30.12.2017 to 30.11.2018. As stated by the applicant, there was some discussion held between the applicant and their standing counsel and therefore, it can be well presumed that the applicant was aware of the fact that ex parte proceedings was drawn against them. Despite this fact, no steps to recall the ex parte proceedings were taken by the applicant before the Trial Court. As stated by the applicant, there was some discussion held between the applicant and their standing counsel and therefore, it can be well presumed that the applicant was aware of the fact that ex parte proceedings was drawn against them. Despite this fact, no steps to recall the ex parte proceedings were taken by the applicant before the Trial Court. Even after the judgment and decree was passed on 30.11.2018, the applicant was still in touch with their standing counsel and he did not agree to take steps on their behalf unless the professional fees payable to him was appropriately settled. According to the applicant themselves, it was only after a new Commissioner assumed office on 14.10.2019 that steps for filing appeal before this Court could be taken. Such an explanation cannot be accepted by this Court in as much as, the applicant had all the freedom to engage a counsel of their choice, if they had any such difficulty with their standing counsel. There is also no material to show that the applicant AMC cannot engage any other counsel other than the said standing counsel and that they are tied down with him. 13. In State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & ors. (supra) the Apex Court observed that an individual would always be quick in taking the decisions as to whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person illegally injured. However, in case of the State, it cannot be put in the same footing as an individual since State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. In the present case, we are not concerned with the decision making process, inasmuch as, the applicant already knew that their standing counsel was abstaining himself from appearing in the matter even before the matter was disposed of. Further it is not even the case of the applicant that the decision to file an appeal could not be made within a short time. It may be noticed that after the impugned judgment and decree was passed, the applicant failed to take appropriate steps despite knowing the fact that the matter was getting delayed. The action/inaction of the applicant therefore cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay in filing the connected appeal. 14. In the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & ors. The action/inaction of the applicant therefore cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay in filing the connected appeal. 14. In the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & ors. (supra), the Apex Court agreed with the opinion of the High Court that substantial delay cannot be condoned by mere shifting of the blame on the counsel since the parties are required to keep track of the matter and there was also negligence on the facts of that case despite the numerous opportunities that was available. 15. Similarly, the applicant in the instant case had all the opportunity to challenge the ex parte decree drawn by the Trial Court but failed to avail the same. The applicant also had all the opportunity to file the appeal in time by simply engaging another counsel of their choice and not wait for the standing counsel to make up his mind. 16. Thus, upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety, I find no ground to condone the delay of 273 days in filing the connected appeal. As such, the application is rejected and dismissed.