JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. This appeal by plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27/3/2004 in civil appeal No. 71A/2003 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18/9/2000 in civil suit No. 215A/1996. Consequently, suit for declaration, permanent injunction, possession and mesne profit was dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal and as pleaded in the plaint are to the effect that plaintiffs filed the instant suit for the relief hereinbefore mentioned in relation to the agricultural land admeasuring 0.491 hectare falling in survey No. 1002 and 0.805 hectare falling in survey No. 1004 of Tahsil and District Guna. It is pleaded that the suit land was of the ownership of one Dr. Laxmandev Malhotra, which was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 17/1/1960 executed by one Champalal son of Gotu Lal. Thereafter, the said Dr. Malhotra on 27/5/1974 had donated his land by way of registered gift-deed in favour of Kundanbai and accordingly, name of Kundanbai was recorded in the revenue records. Kundanbai in turn vide sale deed dated 3/12/1985 had transferred the suit land in favour of appellants and accordingly, possession was delivered and since then plaintiffs/appellants are in possession thereof with ownership right over the suit land. However, sometimes in November, 1979 defendant No. 1 had encroached upon and taken unauthorized possession of an area of 31 ft east-west and 45 ft. north-south of the suit land; the same is marked as Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, in the map attached with the suit, prior to the aforesaid sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. Kundanbai had given notice to defendant No. 1 to return back the possession. Since defendant No. 1 did not hand over the possession, therefore, suit was filed by Kundanbai on 16/5/1980. During pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 had transferred the suit land to defendant No. 2 on 17/10/1986 and accordingly, defendant No. 2 was made a party to the suit at a later stage with amendment in the prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 17/10/1986 be declared as null and void. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is asserted that vide registered sale deed dated 7/7/1989 the suit land was purchased from one Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi of Dagora and thereafter construction was raised on the said land. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is asserted that vide registered sale deed dated 7/7/1989 the suit land was purchased from one Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi of Dagora and thereafter construction was raised on the said land. It is denied that the appellants/plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land nor entitled to raise construction thereupon and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief claimed in the suit. Defendant No. 2 was added as a party on 9/8/1989, however, despite service of notice, he had not appeared and, therefore was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 7/12/1995. Defendant No. 1 also had remained ex parte on 3/4/1997, as his counsel had pleaded no instruction. As such, defendants No. 1 and 2 both had remained ex parte. 4. The trial court after proceeding ex parte against defendants No. 1 and 2, by judgment and decree dated 18/9/2000 had dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court addressed on three questions: (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was in accordance with law and not liable to be set aside? (ii) Whether the State of M.P. was a necessary party in the light of order I Rule 3B CPC (State amendment in CPC) and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was liable to be set aside for want of necessary party? And, (iii) Whether the findings and conclusion recorded by the trial court were justified? The provision contained in Order I Rule 3A, 3B(2) reads as under:-- "3A. xxxx 3B(1). xxxx (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." While addressing on question No. (ii) in paragraphs 12 to 16 the first appellate court concluded that in the light of State amendment Order I Rule 3B CPC, as no suit or proceedings for declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land with or without any other relief can be entertained unless the State Government is so impleaded as defendant or non-applicant, therefore, in absence of State being made a party, the suit was not maintainable as the subject matter of the suit is admittedly an agricultural land. As regards questions No. (i) and (iii), the first appellate court has found that the suit was not maintainable for want of necessary party. The conclusion on merits was held to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the first appellate court has remitted the matter back to the trial court setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18/9/2000 with direction to the plaintiffs to add the State Government as party and further direction to the trial court that defendants No. 1 and 2, who had remained ex parte, as well as newly added respondent/State Government be also given opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter the suit be decided on merits. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgment and decree, in the opinion of this Court, the first appellate court did not commit any error of law or fact while remanding the matter to the trial court for decision afresh after affording opportunity to defendants No. 1 and 2 as well as to the newly added respondent/State of M.P. The Appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.