JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4-2-82 passed by Shri Vidha Shekhar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner. Meerut Division, in Appeal no. 1 of 1979. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 24-9-79 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaaziabad, in Suit no.5 under Section 229-B of U. P. Act I of 1951. The trial court had allowed the review petition and set aside its predecessors judgment by which the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the trial court was not authorised to review its own order as the power of review rests with the appellate court. The orders in this case were passed on 4-2-82 by the learned Additional Commissioner. This second appeal on behalf of the State has been filed on 19-2-86. No application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the memo of appeal supported with an affidavit. Order 41 Rule 3-A inserted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 lays down the mode of presentation of an appeal which is filed with delay. The memo of appeal must accompany an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit showing sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The said rule 3-A reads as under :- "Order 41, Rule 3-A. - (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the applicant relies to satisfy the court that had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period." In the instant appeal, no application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the State. 2. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) has no explanation for non-compliance of the relevant provisions of law in filing this appeal with delay. He says that this appeal was filed by Sri S.N. Shukla, the then District Government Counsel and it was filed without any application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit showing cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of law. The trial court has no sanction of law for reviewing its own order. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of law. The trial court has no sanction of law for reviewing its own order. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.