' The facts are that property bearing No, 2000, situate at Nisbat Road, Daska, District Sialkot, comprising a shop, was transferred by the Settlement Department to Shukar Din respondent and a P. T. D. Issued in his favour. He brought an ejectment petition against the petitioner claiming that he was in possession of the shop as a tenant under him. The learned Rent Controller passed the ejectment order which was set aside by the learned Appellate authority. The latter maintained that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Thereafter, the respondent sued the petitioner for possession before the civil Court, who resisted the suit and argued that the property in dispute formed part of house No, 2002 already permanently settled on him by the Settlement authorities on 13th May, 1963. His assertion was that after the issuance of the P. T. D. In his favour, the Settlement authorities became functus officio and had no power vested in them to slice away a part of his property and transfer the same to the respondent as a shop. In this respect, he relied upon the demarcation report Exh. D/2, prepared by the Settlement Inspector and the plan Exh. D/6. The respondent also produced in evidence the P. T. D. The demarcation-order dated 25th May, 1969 Exh. P/4, the plan Exh. P/5, and the copy of the excise and taxation record for the year 1964-65 Exh. P/1. Besides this he appeared as his own witness.
2. The learned trial Court took the view that the property claimed by the respondent as a shop, in the plan Exh. D/6, stood shown as a room of house No, 2002 transferred to the petitioner vide P. T. D.
Dated 13th May, 1963, Exh. D/5. In its opinion the property in dispute having been already settled on the petitioner, was no longer available for transfer to the respondent and accordingly dismissed his suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff then preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge by means of the impugned order remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction to appoint a local Commissioner, obtain a report from him regarding the location of both the properties, allow the parties to lead further evidence and then decide the suit afresh.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record, including their oral evidence and the documents, copies whereof have been placed on this file. The learned Additional District Judge, much less to discuss, has not even referred to the evidence on record. As an appellate Court it was his obligation to have discussed this evidence and commented upon the reasoning which influenced the decision of the trial Court. Indeed he has dealt with the case in a perfunctory manner. It is argued by the petitioner's learned counsel that there is sufficient material on the record, to decide the appeal o merits, one way or the other. This submission is not without sub stance. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent did not have much in support of the impugned order.
4. The first appellate Court should not ordinarily remand the case to the trial Court unless there are compelling reasons for that. In the instant case, the learned Additional District Judge, practically has ordered the retrial without even referring to the evidence of the par ties. Such a decision cannot be upheld.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order set aside and the case remanded to the learned District Judge for decision of the appeal on the basis of the evidence already on the record. In case after going through the evidence, ho stands in the need of additional evidence to enable him to pronounce the judgment, he may direct the trial Court to record such evidence and return the same to him.
' The par ties are left to bear their own costs and directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 5th April, 1983.