This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Settlement Com-mission, Rajasthan (Jaipur) dated 4.6.54 reviewing the order of his predecessor. 2. The circumstances which have given rise to the appeal are that appellants made an application to the Settlement Officer,Udaipur, on 19.6.52 that entries in the Settlement Records were not made in the spirit of the order passed by his court on 12.5.49. The then Settlement Officer made a reference to the Settlement Officer Sri Dharnidhar Mohalla who had passed that order. He, however, returned the papers back to his successor in office with the direction that he may pass orders as he deemed fit. Then Settlement officer Sri Himmat Singh Mehta rejected the application of the appellants on 8.9.52. The appellants appealed against this order to the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan (Jaipur) who passed order in their favour on 26.5.53. The respondents made a review application six months after this on 2.12.53 to Sri Purshottamlal, Sukhwal, the present Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan (Jaipur) who accepted the review holding that under sec. 65 of the Revenue Courts Procedure & Jurisdiction Act he had inherent powers to entertain this review and set aside the order of his predecessor and pass orders that so long as another order in this regard was not made his predecessors order may not be complied with. It is against this order that the appellant has come in revision before us. 3. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. The main point involved for decision in this case is whether Shri Purshottamlal Sukhwal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan (Jaipur) was competent to review the order passed by his predecessor in office. Sec. 25 of the Revenue Courts procedure and Jurisdiction Act empowers revenue courts other than the Board to review any decree, order or judgment by such court in accordance with the rules made under Sec. 8 of the Act. Rule 210 made under sec. 8 of the above Act provides to whom applications for review may be made. It runs as follows:— "210. Rule 210 made under sec. 8 of the above Act provides to whom applications for review may be made. It runs as follows:— "210. An application for review of a decree or order of the court, not being a Board, upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as is referred to in rule 209 or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree shall be made only to the officer who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed; but any such application may, if the officer who passed the decree or made the order has ordered notice to issue under rule 212 sub-rule (2) proviso (a) be disposed by his successor". Thus a review application should have been made to the officer who passed order and it should be disposed of by the same officer. It can, however, be disposed of by his successor also, provided a notice was issued under rule 212 sub-rule (2) proviso (a) by the former officer himself. In the present case, application for review was submitted six months after the passing of the order and was not submitted to Shri R. N. Shukla who had passed the order. Thus it is not covered under rule 210. 4. The argument that the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the exercise of inherent powers of the court to prevent the abuse of the process of the court can pass such order does not appear to have much force. Inherent powers cannot be exercised where the Code contains specific provisions that would meet the requirements of the case and such provisions should be followed. This view has been held in A.I.R. 1929 Lahore 694 and also in 1928 A.I.R. Lahore 772. Thus the power under this section is to be used only when there is no other remedy. Courts are not enabled to evade or ignore the provisions of law as to procedure. This view finds support in A.I.R. 1923 Allahabad 603. In the present case an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan was subject to appeal or revision as the case may be to the Board of Revenue. Therefore,as discussed above, inherent powers could not be invoked by the subordinate court of the Additional Commissioner Settlement Deptt. Rajasthan. This view finds support in A.I.R. 1923 Allahabad 603. In the present case an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan was subject to appeal or revision as the case may be to the Board of Revenue. Therefore,as discussed above, inherent powers could not be invoked by the subordinate court of the Additional Commissioner Settlement Deptt. Rajasthan. Obviously the order of review passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner is without jurisdiction. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside this order and restore thai of his predecessor.