JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This application for revision is a good one. We have no doubt that the lower appellate court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to hear the appeal. The suit was a suit under section 95 of the Tenancy Act to determine the nature, extent and rent of a certain holding. The defence raised was that the occupant of the holding was a proprietor. The Assistant Collector partially decreed the claim. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge who decided the question of proprietary title but remanded the case to the Assistant Collector in order that the rent on a portion of the land might be assessed in accordance with certain conclusions at which he had arrived. 2. The case went back to the Assistant Collector, who held that he was not competent to decree the case. He then dismissed the suit. Again an appeal was filed to the District Judge. By this time a District Judge other than the District Judge who had decided the appeal on the first occasion was the Judge. He held that no appeal lay and returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper court. We are asked to revise this finding and decree of the learned District Judge. As the question of proprietary title had been raised in the course of the suit and had been decided, the District Judge had jurisdiction. Furthermore it was the duty of the Assistant Collector when the case was returned to him to proceed with the case. He could not arrogate to himself the power to decide that the suit did not lie. We therefore allow the application with costs, set aside the decree of the court below and direct the learned District Judge to admit the appeal on the file of pending appeals and to dispose of it according to law.