JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6-1-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeal no. 108/54 of 1982-83 filed by the defendant opposite party no. 1. The legal ground taken by the appellant is that Rule 3-A of Order XLI C.P.C., operative from 1-2-1917, is mandatory and hence the lower appellate court has committed material irregularity in reversing the procedure i. e. by admitting the appeal first and later condoning the delay. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was decided by the trial court on 30-6-1983/23-7-1983. An appeal against this order was filed before the Divisional Commissioner. It was pleaded before him that the appeal was time barred. Admittedly, the appeal was admitted before the delay was condoned. An application dated 16-8-1983 was moved by the appellant before the learned Additional Commissioner for condoning the delay. Sri Misri Lal, learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and condoned the delay by means of an order dated 6-1-1989. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri Hari Shanker, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the order was illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Sri R.K. Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that it was nothing but a technical error and mere technicality should not jeopardise the interest of the parties. 4. I have given a careful thought to the arguments advanced before me. Rule 3-A of Order XLI C.P.C. prescribes the procedure for condoning the delay. This rule reads as under : "(1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by 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) If the court sees no 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 11 or Rule 13, as the case may be. (2) If the court sees no 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 11 or Rule 13, as the case may be. (3) Where an application has been made under sub-rule (1), the court shall not make an 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, decide to hear the appeal". It is quite clear from the above provision that compliance of the provisions are mandatory. Rule 3-A (2) clearly provides that if the court sees no 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 11 or Rule 13, as the case may be. In the instant case, the learned Additional Commissioner has committed manifest error in law by admitting a time-barred appeal without any notice to the respondent. 5. Since the learned lower appellate Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 6-1-1989 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Commissioner to hear the parties on the admissibility of the time-barred appeal. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate court on 28-2-1991.