Judgment Anant Singh, J. 1. The wholesale remand of the case to the trial Court for taking additional evidence and then dispose it of according to law is bad. being in contravention of the specific provisions of law, as provided in Rules 27 and 28 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It appears that the two plaintiffs, on one hand, and Kedarnath, since deceased, and his daughter, Saibalini Devi, on the other, had entered into a partnership agreement to run a restaurant in the name of Ranchi Restaurant, which is defendant No. 4. Sadanand (defendant No. 2) is the son of Kedarnath. Kirii Bhusan Singh (defendant No. 3) is the husband of defendant No. 1 and Dilip Kumar (defendant No. 5) is their son. These defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were, however no party to the agreement but the deed of partnership agreement provided that the deaths of any of the partners will not result in the dissolution of partnership but the business will be taken on by the legal representatives of the deceased partner. 3. The plaintiffs filed an application under Sec.20 of the Arbitration Act for a direction upon, the defendants to file the agreement for reference to arbitrator for the purpose of dissolution of the partnership business and rendition of accounts, since there was a clause in the partnership agreement that in case of any dispute between the partners, the same would be decided by arbitrator to be selected by the parties. The application was registered as Title Suit No. 15 of 1960. 4. All the defendants in their written statement pleaded that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement and that they had nothing to do with the alleged partnership business. The deed of partnership agreement was, however, not filed before the trial Court. Since with the exception of defendant No. 1, none of the other defendants was ostensibly party to the partnership agreement the trial Court dismissed the suit against all the defendants. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the lower appellate court has remanded the whole case for taking into evidence the partnership agreement and then decide the dispute according to law. 5. Mr. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the lower appellate court has remanded the whole case for taking into evidence the partnership agreement and then decide the dispute according to law. 5. Mr. Lal Narayan Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, has raised a point that, as provided in Rules 27 and 28 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of appeal below could have either taken the partnership agreement into evidence itself or directed the trial Court to take it into evidence and then send it to the court of appeal below, but it could not have remanded the whole case in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention seems to be sound. The court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction against specific provisions of law. The order of remand of the whole case is bad and is, therefore, set aside. The learned court of appeal below will either take into evidence the partnership agreement itself or direct the trial Court to take it into evidence and then send it to it when the court of appeal below will decide all the questions arising in the appeals and dispose them of in accordance with law. 6. The two revision applications are accordingly allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.