1. These two Second Appeals are connected and raise a common question of law. These were admitted on the question:

"Whether the court below was justified in disposing of the appeal before disposing of the application made under 0.41 R.27 for reception of additional evidence".

The courts below had concurrently found against the appellant in the two suits. The counsel for the appellant forcefully contended that the appellate court decided the appeals without disposing of an application filed under 0.41 R.27 CPC. This was an improper exercise of jurisdiction which has rendered the judgment bad. The respondents' counsel contended that no substantial question of law as contemplated by S.100 CPC. (amended) arose in these appeals and as such the appeals should be dismissed. It was further submitted that the appeals involved only questions of fact which had been concurrently found by the courts below against the appellant.

2. Since the appeals were admitted on this question and no other question of law was involved, this question alone was agitated at the bar. It was contended by the appellant's counsel that the right given to a party under 0.41 R.27 was a valuable right and an im