A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-12-94 (sic) passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Dewas, in Civil Suit No. 1/1982-B. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in short are that the non-applicant, Bank of India, Branch Dewas advanced a loan to the applicant on the basis of mortgage of agricultural land. The non-applicant brought a suit for recovery of loan by sale of agricultural land mortgaged with it. The applicant raised an objection that in view of the legal amendment in the State of M. P. Civil Procedure Code, the State of M. P. is a necessary party in a suit pertaining to agricultural land and therefore, the suit cannot proceed without making the State of M. P. a party in the case. The aforesaid objection was disallowed by the Court and therefore, the defendants have filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Shri Amarsingh, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants, the lower court while passing the impugned order, has not correctly interpreted the provisions of Order 1 Rule 3-B, CPC, wherein, it has been provided that the State should be made a party in a suit, where the declaration of title or any right over the agricultural land is sought, or where a suit is for specific performance of contract for transfer of any agricultural land. Therefore, the court, in view of the clear provisions of law, should have directed the non-applicant to implead the State of M. P. as a party and therefore, the court has committed an error in rejecting the application of the applicants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank Shri Counsel has supported the finding of the learned lower court. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the respective arguments of the parties, and examining the legal position, I am of the view that this revision petition should be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank Shri Counsel has supported the finding of the learned lower court. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the respective arguments of the parties, and examining the legal position, I am of the view that this revision petition should be dismissed. The amendment of the State of M. P. has been incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code, which says that no suit or proceeding for declaration of title or any right over an agricultural land with or without any other relief, or 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 the applicant, as the case may be, knowing or has reason to believe that a return under S. 9 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960 in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him, or by any other person before a competent authority, appointed under the Act, unless the State of M. P. has been impleaded as one of the defendants or non-applicants as the case may be to such suit or proceeding. ( 5 ) AS such, under the newly added Rule, a suit for declaration of title, or for specific performance of the contract in respect of the agricultural land claiming a right or transfer of the Agricultural land with or without any relief cannot be entertained by the court, unless, the plaintiff or the applicant knowing or has reason to believe that a return under S. 9 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) in relation to the land, which may be the subject matter of the suit or proceeding, is required to be filed before the competent authority, has impleaded the State of M. P. as one of the defendants or non-applicant in a suit or proceeding as the case may be. As such, in respect of those lands, where the provisions of S. 9 of Ceiling Act, are attracted, a suit or proceeding for declaration of title or of specific performance of contract in respect of that land, seeking the relief of declaration of any right or transfer cannot be filed unless the State of M. P. is made a party. As such, in respect of those lands, where the provisions of S. 9 of Ceiling Act, are attracted, a suit or proceeding for declaration of title or of specific performance of contract in respect of that land, seeking the relief of declaration of any right or transfer cannot be filed unless the State of M. P. is made a party. ( 6 ) NOW, in the instant case, of course, the land in question is an agricultural land, but it has not been shown by the applicants, that the provisions of S. 9 of the Ceiling Act are attracted in respect of the land in question and further that the suit is either a suit for declaration of title or for specific performance of contract for transfer of any agricultural land. ( 7 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the suit of the bank is a suit for recovery of money and the land is mortgaged with the bank as a security for the repayment of the loan. The bank in the instant case has not sought the specific performance of any contract for transfer and has also not sought any declaration of title of and right over the land. It is true that in view of S. 58 of) the Transfer of Property Act of an interest in the specific immovable property for securing the payment of money advanced by way of loan (Sic ). But the provisions of S. 3-B of Order 1 of CPC shall be attracted only when the conditions enumerated above, exist. In the instant case, none of the conditions for attracting the provisions of Rule 3-B Order 1 C. P. C. is present. The lower court was therefore justified in rejecting the prayer of the present applicants. ( 8 ) IN the result, this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 75 if certified or according to schedule whichever be less. Petition dismissed. .