( 1. ) COUNSEL heard on I. A. No. 304 of 1989 filed on 12-1-1989, whereby the appellant has applied to add the State as a party in view of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3-B of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2. ) SHRI A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application and contended that the application is barred by time, because the provisions of Order 1 rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code has been added in the Code of civil Procedure by S. 5 Civil Procedure Code M. P. Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 29 of 1984) which came into force from 11-7-1984 and right to apply first accrued on that date. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 282 (The Kerala Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T. P. Kunhaliumma) and a single Bench decision of this court in C. R. No. 501 of 83 (G)decided on 29-8-86, Morena District Co-op Sugar Factory vs. New India assurance Co. , 1987 (Vol. I) M. P. Weekly Notes, Note 105. The learned counsel contended that after the enforcement of the Act and amendment the appellant ought to have filed the application under O. 1, Rule 3-B Civil Procedure Code within a period of three years from the date of the amendment as the residuary Act. 137 of the Limitation Act lays down a period of 3 years for making any such application. As the condition precedent has not been complied with and the State has not been made party within time, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

( 3. ) AFTER hearing the counsel I am of the opinion that the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit. By Section 5 of the M. P. Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 29 of 1984), O. 1, Rule 3-B Civil Procedure Code has been added in the Principal Act i. e. Code of Civil Procedure after Rule 3-A. Rule 3-B reads as under:

"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". Rule 3-B lays down the conditions for entertainment of suits in relation to the agricultural lands. Subclause (2) of Rule 3-B Civil Procedure Code contains a statutory mandate that 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 impleade as a defendant or non-applicant. By Explanation given after sub-clause (2)in Order 1, Rule 3-B the expression "suit or proceeding" used in this sub-rule includes appeals, reference or revision, but it does not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding.

( 4. ) A bare reading of the provisions shows that in a pending suit or proceeding if the State is not impleaded as a party the court shall not proceed with such suit, appeal or revision. Such pending suit or appeal cannot be dismissed for not impleading State as a party, but the injunction i