JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1981 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 16-A of 78-79. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit under Section 176 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act on 6-2-78 to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants had share in the land in suit and that share should be partitioned accordingly; that on 4-6-78 a written statement was filed on behalf of defendants alleging that the plaintiff had no concern with the land in suit and that they were not in possession over the disputed land as they were not the heirs of Kala deceased; that after the death of Kala his wife Mst. Ramdei was the heir of deceased and she was in possession over the land in suit that she was not made a party to the proceedings. After considering the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on 10-11-78. Aggrieved by that order an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal was time barred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below committed an error of law in failing to consider the certified copy of the application which was filed at the time of hearing of the appeal and which proves that the application for the certified copy of the judgment was filed by the appellant on 15-11-78; that oral request was made on behalf of the appellant for the condoning the delay, if any. The lower appellate court acted illegally in failing to consider it on the ground that the application for condonation was not filed in writing. Under Order 41, Rule 3-A of C.P.C. has been inserted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 1976 which reads as follows : - "3-A. Application for condonation of delay:- (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. 2. 2. If the court sees not reason to reject the application without the issue of a notice to the respondent notice thereof shall be issued to the respondent and the matter shall be finally decided by the court before it proceeds to deal with the appeal under rule 14 or rule 13, as the case may be. 3. Whereon application has been made under sub-rule (1), the court shall not make order for the stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed to be filed so long as the court does not, after hearing under rule 11, decided to hear the appeal." From the provision contained under sub-rule I of the above mentioned rule, it is evident that the appeal should have been filed along with the application supported by affidavit to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period. This has not been done in the instant case. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that an application along with affidavit should have been filed, but it has not been done in the instant case. I find that the view expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents finds support of law. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this second appeal which dismissed.