JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - This is a first appeal from an order of remand passed by the Civil Judge of Rae-Bareli, purporting to be one under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A suit was instituted by the applicant against the Defendants for the recovery of Rs. 541/4/6 on the allegation that Defendant No. 1, who was the Ziledar of the Plaintiff had collected certain sums from the Plaintiff's tenants but had not accounted for them to the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was the father of Defendant No. 1 and it was alleged that he was a surety for Defendant No. 1 and as such his liability was co-extensive with that of Defendant No. 1. 3. A number of witnesses and receipts were produced in support of the claim that sums had been realised by the Defendants. The Defendants, however, denied the execution of the receipts or the realisation of the sums mentioned in the receipts. No expert evidence was produced before the Munsif but he himself compared the signatures and came to the conclusion that the claim had not been established. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. 4. The Plaintiff than went in appeal to the District Judge and the appeal ultimately came up for hearing before the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge considered the evidence produced on behalf of the parties and ultimately passed an order that as no expert had been produced in this case the decree passed by the trial Court be set aside and the case remanded to trial Court with a direction to re-admit the case to its original number and to decide it afresh. He, however, made a further direction that the only evidence which could be produced in the trial Court after the remand, was, the evidence of an expert to be produced by the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff failed to produce, the evidence the suit should be dismissed. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken to the admissibility of the appeal. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent that the suit had not been remanded under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC but under the inherent powers of the Court and in support of this contention a ruling of the erstwhile Oudh Chief Court, Ashfaq Husain v. Moharram Ali 1948 A.W.R. (C.C.) 37, has been cited. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent that the suit had not been remanded under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC but under the inherent powers of the Court and in support of this contention a ruling of the erstwhile Oudh Chief Court, Ashfaq Husain v. Moharram Ali 1948 A.W.R. (C.C.) 37, has been cited. In this reported case it was held that Order 41 Rule 23 would be applicable only if the case had been decided on a preliminary point but the other issues had not been decided and ultimately an order of remand is passed setting aside the decree. It would not be an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 Cr.P.C. if the trial Court had decided all the issues, but even then the appellate Court sets aside the decree and orders remand for rehearing. That would be a remand under the inherent powers of the appellate Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant concedes that in view of the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u)(sic) will not be competent, in the circumstances of the present case and prays that the appeal may therefore be treated as a revision. 7. I would have been loath to treat this appeal as a revision but it appears to me that the order passed by the appellate Court was not a proper order. The Courts have to decide a case on the evidence before them and if a party on whom the onus of proving a certain fact fails or omits to produce the evidence to establish his case the suit should fail. It is no part of the duty of the Court to suggest to the parties what evidence should be produced in a particular case. The learned Civil Judge should, therefore have decided this case on the material before him. It appears from a perusal of the judgment of the lower Court that although he agreed with the assessment of the evidence made by the trial Court, yet he was in doubt as to whether he could arrive at a correct conclusion in the absence of the evidence of some expert, and as he thought it was the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case, he seems to have directed the Plaintiff to produce the expert. The proper course for him should have been, if he was not satisfied and thought that an expert should have been examined, to give the parties an opportunity to produce expert evidence and to have directed the trial Court to examine the expert, if any produced by the parties, and then to decide the appeal on receipt of this evidence from the trial Court. The order of remand does not provide for the contingency if the Plaintiff produced an expert and the opposite party wanted to rebut that evidence. The direction is confined to the production of expert evidence by the Plaintiff alone. It would thus appear that the order passed by the Court below was not a proper order and should therefore be revised. I therefore think it fit to treat this appeal as a revision. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is, therefore, set aside and he is directed to re-admit the appeal and pass a proper order. If he thinks that it is necessary to produce expert evidence and to allow to produce expert evidence. It is open to him to ask the trial Court to record evidence of expert witness or witnesses if any party chooses to produce them and then to consider the evidence of these witnesses before finally deciding the appeal. Costs in this Court shall abide the result. 8. The stay order is discharged.