Jackson, J.

1. This is a revision petition against an order of remand passed by Mr. K. S. Ramaswami Sastri, District Judge of Ramnad, on 18th March, 1929, in A.S. No. 282 of 1926.

2. The learned Judge tabulated three points for decision, and decided them all except that he required a finding from the Lower Court as regards the yellow marked items on the suit map. This of course is provided for in Order 41, Rules 25 and 27. But the learned Judge has remanded the case "in the exercise of his Courts inherent power." No reason has been suggested for this surprising procedure), and the only reason which can be inferred from the record, that the quarter was closing and the Judge wished to add a disposal to his returns, is one which this Court would be loath to believe.

3. The question now is whether when the Code contains specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case in question, such provisions should not be followed, instead of the inherent jurisdiction being invoked.

4. This point is very fully considered by Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., in Venkmnma v. Goparayu Perraju (1928) M.W.N. 164 and his statement of his opinion and of the authorities upon which it is based is