Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 444 of 1120 of the District Munsiff 's Court, Kottarakkara. The order sought to be revised is one allowing an application filed by the first defendant under Order IX R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point taken by the petitioner is that in view of the finding arrived at by the learned Munsiff, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the decree. 2. The suit was one for cancellation of a sale deed and recovery of possession of the property from the first defendant. The trial court set aside the sale deed in respect of 7/8 of the property. The first defendant preferred an appeal and the appellate court confirmed the cancellation of the sale deed but remanded the suit to give an opportunity to the first defendant to prove his claim for value of improvements to the extent of Rs. 500/- which was the sum claimed in appeal. After remand, there were four postings for payment of commissioner's batta and on account of the first defendant's default, the trial court passed a preliminary decree refusing the claim for value of improvements. The first defendant preferred an appeal and second appeal but both were dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for final decree and after getting a commissioner's report dividing the property, a final decree was passed on 6-1-59 pursuant to which delivery of possession was given to the plaintiff on 23-6-1959. On 13-8-1959 the first defendant applied under Order IX R.13 for setting aside the final decree alleging that the same was passed without notice to him and that he came to know of it only within 30 days of his making the application. After an elaborate enquiry the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the first defendant had notice and that he was aware of all the proceedings up to the final decree as and when the same took place and that he was not prevented by sufficient reason from appearing in court. Nevertheless the learned Munsiff passed an order giving a further opportunity to the first defendant to prove his claim for value of improvements with the direction that the same could be set off against the claim for mesne profits and further directing that the delivery of possession in execution would stand. The revision petition is filed against this order. 3. Nevertheless the learned Munsiff passed an order giving a further opportunity to the first defendant to prove his claim for value of improvements with the direction that the same could be set off against the claim for mesne profits and further directing that the delivery of possession in execution would stand. The revision petition is filed against this order. 3. The order passed by the learned Munsiff cannot be supported. The claims for value of improvements was disallowed by the preliminary decree passed on 14-8-1953 and the same was not sought to be set aside. The learned Munsiff held: "I find that the first defendant was aware of all the proceedings after the preliminary decree up to the passing of the final decree and there was no sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing in court to attract the provisions of Order IX R.13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence I find that the final decree could not be set aside". Dealing with the first defendant's prayer for allowing his application under the inherent powers of the Court the learned Munsiff observed that the defendant was given sufficient opportunity to ascertain the value of improvements as could be seen from the progress diary. It was also held that the first defendant was guilty of gross and wilful laches. After coming to these conclusions the learned Munsiff felt that as the sale deed was set aside on a technical ground this was a fit case for allowing an opportunity to the first defendant to ascertain the value of improvements in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. He held that in other respects the decree and the execution proceedings were to stand confirmed. Such an order is not contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree passed exparte against several defendants may be set aside as against one or more in appropriate cases but the Code does not provide for an order of this kind. Again the order in effect is one setting aside the preliminary decree keeping the final decree intact. After coming to the conclusion that there were no grounds for allowing the application under Order IX R.13 the court had no jurisdiction to grant his prayer in exercise of its inherent power. Again the order in effect is one setting aside the preliminary decree keeping the final decree intact. After coming to the conclusion that there were no grounds for allowing the application under Order IX R.13 the court had no jurisdiction to grant his prayer in exercise of its inherent power. The High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Patna have held that apart from Order IX R.13 the court has no inherent power to set aside a decree passed exparte. In K.B. Dutt v. Shamsuddin [34 Cal. W.N. 419] Rankin, C.J., said: "I entirely dissent from the view that, if no case is made out under that rule (Order IX R.13) it is open to the learned judge to enlarge the rule by talking about S.151." A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has also adopted this view. The Bombay High Court has, no doubt, taken a different view but this Court has been following the view that the court has no inherent power in such cases. In a recent case, Vidhyadharan v. Parthan Kurup 1961 KLT. 431 Madhavan Nair, J., has held that where there are specific provisions for a particular relief, courts are not to invoke their inherent jurisdiction to do what may appear to a particular judge as justice in the case. The order made by the learned Munsiff cannot in these circumstances be supported. 4. Counsel for the respondent urged that the order was not to be viewed as one under O. IX, R.13 but as one allowing the valuation of improvements under Act 29 of 1958. According to counsel, the first defendant is entitled to have the improvements valued notwithstanding the decree and it was only this relief that was granted by the learned Munsiff. I am unable to accept this argument. If the defendant has any right under the Act to get the improvements valued - a point on which I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion at this stage - it is unnecessary to set aside the decree for this purpose. The order cannot be supported on this ground. 5. In the result, I set aside the order of the court below and dismiss the application under Order IX R.13. The civil revision petition is allowed with costs. Allowed.