John Edge, Kt., C.J., Knox, Blair, Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.
1. In the appeal to this Court the appellant wished to question an order of remand made in March 1892. The appeal in this Court was not under Section 588 of Act No. XIV of 1882 from that order. It was an appeal from an order of the 12th of April 1893, passed on appeal after the case had been heard on remand. The appellant had one ground in his memorandum of appeal. That ground complained of the decision of the 12th of April 1893, and did not allege any error, defect or irregularity in the order of 23rd of March 1892. It appears to us that the appeal must necessarily fail. The only question upon which the appellant proposes to support the appeal is the propriety of the order of the 23rd of March 1892. In the case of Tilak Raj Singh v. Chakardhari Singh I.L.R. 15 All. 119, this Court held that in order to take advantage of the provisions of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure the ground must be set out in the memorandum of appeal. It has not been set out in this memorandum of appeal. Further, it would appear that Section 591 does not enable a litigant to avoid limitation by coming up under Section 591 when the only ground of appeal is the order made under Section 562. Section 591 contemplates two things--there being a regular appeal about something else, and in that appeal the insertion of a ground of objection under Section 591. We dismiss the appeal with costs.