Short Note : Initially when the suit was filed against the sale defendant Bheru, he had taken the plea that non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4 were necessary parties. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court also held that these non-applicants were necessary parties. Till the stage of remand it was nobody's case that the applicant was also a necessary party. The First Appellate Court after coming to the finding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4 remanded the case with the direction that the trial Court shall give an opportunity to the non-applicant No.1 to joint non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4 as defendants in the suit. Held : The trial Court, after the remand, exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in allowing the non-applicant No. 1's prayer for impleading the applicant as defendant. 2. The defence of the non-applicant No.2 was that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Both the Courts upheld that contention and the First Appellate Court under its inherent powers remanded the case with a specific direction to give an opportunity to the non-applicant No.1 to implead non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4 as defendants. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant seems to be correct in his contention that the jurisdiction of the trial Court was circumscribed by the remand order and that the Court had no jurisdiction to permit non-applicant No. 1 to implead any other person beyond the direction given in the remand order. Revision allowed.