ORDER : This CRP. is submitted by the assignee of auction purchaser in OS. No. 534 of 1106 on the file of the Munsiff of Attingal. The Court sale in the case was on 22-9-1954. On 1-12-1955, i. e. more than 14 months after the Court sale, the respondent, who claims to be a member of the judgment-debtor’s tarwad, filed a petition to set aside the Court sale and the learned Munsiff “in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction” ordered that “the sale of item I will be set aside if the petitioner deposits in Court on or before 9-3-56 the sale amount with interest at 4 per cent from the date of sale”. 2. It has been ruled time & again 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. Justice has always to be measured in Courts in terms of law. Sympathy for a debtor’s loss of his property for a seemingly inadequate price has little relevance in the administration of the law of execution of decrees in Courts. The so-called exercise of inherent jurisdiction to over-ride the imperative provisions of the Statute on Limitations is absolutely unwarranted. The Court below had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale on an application filed more than 14 months after the Court sale, while S. 3 of the Limitation Act requires it to dismiss every application “Under the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale in execution of a decree” made after 30 days of the date of the sale. Proceedings of Courts have to be given their full force and can be set at naught only in accordance with the provisions made therefor by express statute. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the learned Munsiff in this case on a petition filed more than 14 months after the Court sale is to attach little weight to the sale held in due process of Court and confirmed in due time by the Court. The order is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below and has to be vacated in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S. 115 CPC. 3. The order is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below and has to be vacated in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S. 115 CPC. 3. It was contended vehemently by the learned counsel for the respondent-judgment-debtor that the matter has been in appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Attingal, in CMA. 49/1956 and he has recorded “As argued by both sides the CMA. is dismissed without costs”. This judgment is unintelligible to me. What the argument by both sides was, has not been disclosed in the Judgment. Apart from the contents of the Judgment, it is trite knowledge that no appeal would lie from an order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction by a subordinate Court. What the learned Munsiff has ordered in the case was to set aside the sale “in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction”. On that order no appellate Judge will have any jurisdiction to interfere. It follows that the judgment of the appellate Court in the CMA. is without jurisdiction and has no legal effect. That judgment being a nullity the matter comes rightly within the purview of S. 115 CPC. 4. The CRP. is allowed and the petition CMP. 13478 dated 1-12-1955 in OS. No. 534 of 1106 on the file of the Munsiff of Attingal will stand dismissed with costs both in the execution Court and in this Court in respect of this C.R.P. Allowed.