( 1. ) BY this common order the five appeals (Misc. Appeals Nos. 88/85, 81/85, 87/85, 99/85 and 79/85) are being disposed of as they all involve a common question of law. In all these appeals the impugned order is passed in same terms. The appellate Court has set aside the decree passed in each case by allowing the appeals and remanded each of the cases to the trial Court for retrial taking an erroneous view of state Amendment of Civil Procedure Code, the relevant provision being section 5 of Civil Procedure Code (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984.

( 2. ) THE view taken being patently erroneous all these appeals were ordered to be heard analogously and expeditiously dispensing notice to the respondents I took the view that respondents are not to be heard in these matters because appeals were not heard and disposed of on merits and the remand was made on a specific ground to protect only the interest of State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the party to be heard in these matters was only the State of Madhya Pradesh whose interest is likely to be adversely affected. In all these matters Deputy Government Advocate, Shri Roman, has been heard. He has made his submissions.

( 3. ) THE crucial provision now. The Rule 3-B of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure code which is the bone of contention in all these matters is extracted in extenso :-

"3-B. Conditions for entertainment of suits :- (1) No suit or proceeding for.-

(a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief, or (b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land, with or without any other relief, shall be entertained by any Court, unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed * under that Act, has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants, as the case may be, to such suit or proceeding. (2) No Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant. Explanation : - The expression "suit or proceeding" used in this sub-rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, but shall not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding. " I have no doubt, on carefully reading the above provision, that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order in each of the cases, order for de novo trial in each of the cases. This is what is not at all contemplated by this provision. This could not have been done without prolonging the life of litigation unnecessarily and causing undue harassment to the parties at all stages. This is wholly impermissible and the judicial act must be interdicted at once before it causes further mischief.

( 4. ) THE sole object of the State Amendment is to protect interest of the State in a particular class. -. of cases. Whether the State has any interest in any case at any state of the lis has to be decided by any Court before which any proceeding is pending when the state Amendment Act came into force and this duty is placed, by the State Amendment act, to be discharged by not only the trial Court but also by the appellate Court, of course, excluding the executing Court, as is made very clear by the Explanation appended to the new provision. Without discharging this duty it did not behove the appellate Court to pass any barren and omnibus order, shifting its responsibility to the trial Court. What is contemplated is that the appellate Court shall issue a notice to the state of Madhya Pradesh to show cause why the State should not b