Remand order treated as procedural, not jurisdictional, so no appeal or revision lay under the Civil Procedure Code.

An order of remand was treated as a procedural order within the appellate court's power, not as an order made without jurisdiction. Because it was not made under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, no appeal lay under Order 43 Rule 1(a) or any other provision. Even if the appellate court should have proceeded under Order 41 Rule 27, the remand was only an improper exercise of jurisdiction already possessed, so Section 115 CPC could not be invoked. The revision challenge therefore failed, and the appeal petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of remand could be interfered with in revision on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction and whether the appeal petition was maintainable under the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The order of remand was held not to have been passed under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore no appeal lay under Order 43, Rule 1(a) or any other provision. The Court treated the question as one of procedure and followed the view that, even if the appellate court ought to have proceeded under Order 41, Rule 27, the remand was at most an improper exercise of a power which the court possessed, and not an order made without jurisdiction. On that footing, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The revision ground failed, and the appeal petition was dismissed with costs.

---