MAHILA BASHIRANBAI W/O AZIZ KHAN Vs. FATIMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-