1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The original suit was to recover money due on a promissory note executed by defendant, to the plaintiff for purposes of trade conducted by defendants 1 and 2. The defence was a plea of discharge by supply of goods, the promissory note being merely a voucher for the amount received for the supply of these goods. The goods were supplied to one Samankatha Nadan and the defendant pleaded also that this man was a benamidar for the plaintiff. On these two issues the suit went to trial. The District Munsif found the discharge proved and dismissed the suit. On appeal, taking the view that the suit note was an escrow and not satisfied that the issues framed by the District Munsif arose on the pleadings, the Subordinate Judge framed two additional issues, 'namely, whether the promissory note was executed subject to the condition that no obligation was to arise under it unless and until the defendants failed to supply the goods for the value of the money lent to Samankatha Nadan, and secondly if so, whether the defendants committed default in not supplying the goods as above; and he remanded the suit for fresh disposal. Against this order the present appeal is filed.
2. Respondents vakil reported before us no instructions but he put before us certain technical objections to the hearing of the appeal contending that no appeal lies. We think that this contention must be upheld It is difficult to hold that this disposal by the District Munsif was a disposal on a preliminary point. Therefore no appeal lies. No doubt rulings of this Court might be cited on which the appeal might be maintained: see Munisami Naickan v. Munuswami Naicken A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 227 and Malayandi Goundan v. D. Poosari A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 331, but the view to which we incline, namely, that no appeal lies when the District Munsif has disposed of all the issues before him and therefore the disposal is not on a preliminary point, has been upheld by a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party in Venkatarama Iyer v. Sundaram Iyer  M.W.N. 48 and in Ratha Krishna Rao v. Venkatarao A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 229. The appeal therefore as an appeal will have to be dismissed.
3. We are asked to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition in which case this Court will not interfere unless the lower Court has acted without jurisdiction or has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. Now, where a Court ordering remand has, in the view of the revisional Court, properly exercised its jurisdiction, the revisional Court will not only not interfere, but also has no power under Section 115, Civil P.C., to interfere: B. Mallayya v. P. Veerayya A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 335 and Karuppanna Pillai v. Ethumalai Pillai : AIR1927Mad859 . In the former case, however, it was explained, and rightly, that each case must be decided on its own facts. But if the lower appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity there can be no question but that this Court has power to interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C., and that therefore is the point now to be considered. The view of the lower appellate Court that the pleadings raise a plea of escrow seems to us to have no warrant The plea in the written statement is that Satnankitha Nadan through the plaintiff paid Rs. 600 for the price of the dye goods and that since the goods could not be dispatched for want of waggons a promissory note was executed as security for the amount advanced.
4. There is here no escrow, the essence of which is the postponement of the operation of a contract. There is no suggestion in the defence plea that the operation of the contract was to be postponed. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, has framed issues and called for trial on points which were never in issue between the parties. A trial on such lines is not merely useless, but is an improper exercise of jurisdiction We must hold therefore that the lower appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and this Court his the power to interfere in revision. We, therefore, set aside the order of remand and direct the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on the issues and materials already before it. We make no order as to costs.