' The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition pugning the validity of the remand order passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Sialkot, on the 24th March, 1986, may be shortly tated. The respondents' suit touching inheritance of the land left by one ussain Bakhsh against the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil badge, Pasrur, on the 28th May, 1985. In appeal the respondents moved plication under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ye to produce additional evidence. After getting the petitioner's reply o the application, Mr. Muhammad Bashir Malik, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who was seized with the hearing of appeal, set aside he judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, remanded the nit and sent the respondents' application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence alongwith the petitioner's reply thereto to the learned trial Court for disposal of the suit as well as the application.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in law. The application for permission to produce additional evidence was to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge himself.
He could not have abdicated his powers and authority to decide it in favour of the learned trial Court which possessed no jurisdiction to deal with such an application. The learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction in deciding the application and appeal. The petition I accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned District Judge, Sialkot, for disposing it and the application according to law. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, on the 20th May, 1986. The parties are left to bear their own costs.