JUDGMENT : ( 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. 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. 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 is against the Court not to proceed with the suit or appeal or any proceeding till the State is added as a party. The object of impleading the State as a party was considered by this court in Mahila bashiranbai v. Fatimabai ( 1986 MPLJ 539 ) and it was held that 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 the case at any stage 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 as it is clear from the Explanation appended to the new provision. ( 5. ) THE appeal in hand came up first for final hearing on 11-1-1989. On that date it was pointed out to the counsel for the parties that in view of the added provision in the Code of Civil Procedure the appeal cannot proceed and cannot be disposed of unless compliance is made by impleading the State as a respondent. ) THE appeal in hand came up first for final hearing on 11-1-1989. On that date it was pointed out to the counsel for the parties that in view of the added provision in the Code of Civil Procedure the appeal cannot proceed and cannot be disposed of unless compliance is made by impleading the State as a respondent. Hence this application for impleading the State as a party was filed, by the appellant so that after impleading the State as a party the Court may proceed with the hearing of the appeal. For impleading the State as a party Art. 137 of the Limitation Act has no application nor the State amendment has provided any period of limitation, by which after the insertion of the provision a party has to implead State as a party to a pending proceeding. Before hearing or proceeding with a pending case, the Statute has put an injunction against the Court, that unless State is impleaded as a party, the court shall not proceed with a pending suit or proceeding which relates to a subject referred in sub-rule (1) i. e. with respect to an agricultural land. Therefore, if a party fails to apply to a court, where such suit or application is pending, the Court before proceeding with such suit or proceeding if a party has failed to implead State as a party, can act suo motu and may direct a party to implead State as a party to comply the condition precedent for proceeding with such a suit or proceeding. In case, even after a direction or order of the Court a party fails to. implead State as a party, certainly court is empowered to take action in accordance with law, even can pass order dismissing the pending suit or proceeding for non-compliance or non-prosecution. The words "as soon as may be" cannot be interpreted to mean, that as soon as the State provision in Civil Procedure Code was added, the party ought to have taken steps to implead State as a party, or even within a period of three years, the period provided in residuary Article of the Limitation Act. It can be done at a stage, where the Court proceeds with the case, the Court before proceeding or hearing the case has to see that State is impleaded as a party. ( 6. It can be done at a stage, where the Court proceeds with the case, the Court before proceeding or hearing the case has to see that State is impleaded as a party. ( 6. ) AS the present appeal came up first for hearing on 11-1-1989, it was found that provisions of O. 1, R. 3-B have not been complied with, the appellant therefore, applied on 12-1-1989 for impleading State as a party, so that State may safeguard its interest, which is the object of the provision. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the application of the appellant cannot be dismissed. ( 7. ) IN the result the application of the appellant is allowed. The appellant shall make necessary amendment in the memo of appeal and file two copies of amended copy of memo of appeal, with process fee, so that the State be noticed through the collector of the district concerned and through office of the Dy. Advocate General, process fee within a week. Application allowed.