The applicant's failure to take appropriate steps despite knowing the delay and the opportunity to challenge the ex parte decree was a key factor in the court's decision to reject the application for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - 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. 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, (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 co