JUDGMENT 1. The matter comes-up on Application (82237/18) filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for taking documents on record. 2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant-applicant that the trial Court had extended benefit of first default to the appellant and trial Court had given a finding that the appellant has complied with the orders passed under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. It is contended that the rent was provisionally determined on19.4.1997 and the trial Court had directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of 15 days. In para 5 of the application appellant has given the details of the rent deposited by him in pursuance of the direction of the Court and in support of deposit, documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-22 have been annexed. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the receipts are public documents and are even admissible in evidence. From the receipts it will be evident that the appellant was depositing the rent in advance and rent has been paid upto March 2019. 3. It is contended that the appellate Court has held that the appellant has not deposited the rent after determination by the Court. The appellant was not afforded any opportunity to establish before the Court that the rent has been deposited. It is also contended that in the file of the trial Court copies of the rent receipts are available, which were not seen by the appellate Court. It is also contended that these documents are relevant to decide the controversy between the parties and in the interest of justice the documents should be taken on record. 4. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently opposed the application. It is contended by the counsel for the landlord that the learned appellate Court had considered the entire material available on record and has held that no documents have been placed before the record of the trial Court relating to payment of rent. It is also contended that there was no pleading about the payment of rent as such application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not maintainable as it was the duty of the appellant to produce the rent receipts before the trial Court. It is also contended that there was no pleading about the payment of rent as such application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not maintainable as it was the duty of the appellant to produce the rent receipts before the trial Court. It is also contended that the issue of default in payment of rent was framed by the trial Court, hence, it was the duty of the tenant to place on record the rent receipts. The appellant has waived his rights and he has not given any reason for not producing the rent receipts before the trial Court. 5. It is also contended that now appellant cannot be permitted to produce additional documents. It is also contended that in execution proceedings respondent-tenant has taken possession of the disputed premises, hence, the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Prakash Chand Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. (RLR 2006 (3) 39) and Shiv Lal vs. Smt. Lakha Bai ( 2016 (2) WLN 449 ). 7. I have considered the contentions of the parties and have perused material available on record. 8. From perusal of the suit filed, it is revealed that the challans pertaining to deposit of rent were produced before the trial Court by the counsel for the tenant and the trial Court, therefore, gave benefit of first default to the appellant. The appellate Court has not considered the record of the trial Court as also the fact that no application was moved by the landlord with regard to non-deposition of the rent. No opportunity whatsoever was granted by the appellate Court to the appellant-tenant to establish that he has deposited the rent after determination by the Court and has been paying rent regularly to the landlord. 9. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent Prakash Chand Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. (supra) was a case where the possession of the suit property was taken over by the plaintiff-respondent. The Court observed that the appeal has become infructuous. 9. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent Prakash Chand Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. (supra) was a case where the possession of the suit property was taken over by the plaintiff-respondent. The Court observed that the appeal has become infructuous. To my mind the judgment is per incuriam as the Court had not referred to Section 144 of CPC which permits appellate Court to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree, hence, present appeal would not become infructuous merely because landlord has obtained possession in execution of the decree during pendency of appeal. 10. Prakash Chand Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. was a case where the tenant did not produce any document before the Court below and before the High Court to establish that he has paid the rent in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, the said judgment has no applicability as in the present case proof of payment of rent was available before the trial Court in the form of challans which were produced by the tenant and now before this Court, the appellant has produced all the original receipts to establish that he has complied with sub-secction (4) of Section 13 of the Act. 11. The challans and the proof of deposition of rent submitted by the appellant are documents, which are necessary for just decision of the appeal. Hence, the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed. The appellant is directed to field affidavit in support of the additional evidence.