The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate court must consider the application for reception of additional evidence before deciding the appeal, and failure to do so constitutes an error of law and improper exercise of jurisdiction.

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 improper exercise of jurisdiction vested under the said provision had worked to the detriment of the appellant, and that reception of additional evidence on proper grounds and consideration of such evidence either by the appellate court or on its direction by the trial court would have swung the case to the advantage of his party. Under 0.41 R.27 (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence has to satisfy the court why the documents could not be produced earlier. If the appellate court is satisfied that the documents, have to be admitted, it shall do so after recording reasons. When an application for reception of additional document is made, the appellate court can proceed with the appeal only after passing orders on such application. Decision of the appeal without bestowing proper attention on the application for reception of additional evidence is bad in law.

3. The question for consideration is whether the question of law raised in the Second Appeals is a substantial question which deserves to be considered by this Court. It was contended by the respondents counsel that this was not a substantial question of law. The appellate court was satisfied on the merits of the case that the appeal had to be dismissed and did not think it necessary to admit the documents as additional evidence. May be, that the order is not happily worded. The order "Appeal dismissed. Hence this LA. is also dismissed." was perhaps made inadvertently instead of dismissing the' application and then dismissing the appeal; for, the judge need not assign any reasons while dismissing the application. It was therefore contended that there was no need for remitting the case back to the appellate court for the mere formality of disposing of the application before disposing the appeal.

4. The appellant's counsel contended that the right available to a suitor under Order XLI R.27 was a valuable one. This right, if properly extended to him can tilt the case in his favour. Hence it is made obligatory on the part of an appellate judge to consider the application on merits before disposing of the appeal. Incidentally, he contended that under S.100 CPC. as amended, the respondents cannot, after the question of law is formulated, argue that the question so formulated is not a substantial question of law. All that he can be allowed to argue is that the case does not involve such question. This is on the strength of the 2nd part of S.100(5) CPC. According to him, once the question is formulated by the court as a substantial question of law, that has to be decided by the court either way and the respondents cannot urge that it is not a substantial question. I find it difficult to agree with this contention. From the wording of S.100(5) CPC. it is clear that appeal can be heard on the ques