Inherent power cannot be used to order remand when the CPC already prescribes the procedure for additional evidence and remand.

Where the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides the procedure for taking additional evidence and remand under Order 41, a court cannot bypass that scheme by invoking inherent powers to order remand. The existence of specific procedural provisions excludes resort to a different procedure under inherent jurisdiction, and any remand made contrary to that framework is a material irregularity. The Madras HC therefore held that remand cannot be ordered through inherent power when the prescribed CPC route is available, and the remand order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appellate court can order remand in exercise of inherent power when the Code of Civil Procedure provides specific provisions governing the taking of additional evidence and remand.

Analysis: The specific procedural scheme in Order 41 had to be followed where it adequately met the situation. The existence of express provisions excluded resort to inherent power for a different procedure. The remand made in purported exercise of inherent power, despite the availability of the prescribed procedural route, was therefore contrary to law and amounted to material irregularity.

Conclusion: The remand order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides the procedure to be adopted, the court cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction to depart from that procedure and order remand.

---