The importance of producing all relevant evidence during trial proceedings and the limitations on the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED with the order passed by the learned MACT, the appellant has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant is aggrieved with two orders i. e. , order/judgment dated 23. 10. 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT in Petition No. 636/2000 and secondly against the order dated 21. 11. 2005 passed by the learned MACT dismissing the objections of the appellant under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil procedure. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 3- Mr. Samud Singh. The main contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that although the driving licence, the certified copy of which was seized by the police from the driver Samud Singh after the accident was for driving Light Motor Vehicle, in short referred to as lmv but in fact the driver was already in possession of HTV licence. Counsel for the appellant, therefore, contends that the driver was in possession of proper and valid driving licence i. e. H. T. V. for driving Heavy Transport vehicle, but due to some inadvertence and negligence, the said HTV licence could not be proved as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Along with the said appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission of this Court to allow the appellant to place on record the original driving licence issued by the competent authority for driving Heavy Transport Vehicle. The ground given by the appellant is the same that due to carelessness and negligence of the earlier counsel, the appellant could not prove the valid driving licence of the driver and during the course of filing objections under Order 21 Rule 58, the appellant had filed the said valid and proper HTV driving licence. The objections filed by the appellant against the execution application filed by the insurance company were dismissed vide order dated 21. 11. 2005. The operative para of the said order is reproduced as under:-"the owner of the offending vehicle Om Prakash is now in these execution proceedings claiming that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was, in fact, having a driving licence meant for HTV but the same could not be filed when the claim petition was going on as the licence was in the custody of the driver who did not file the same because of which miscarriage of justice has occasioned. A photocopy of the driving licence of the driver Samood singh was also annexed with the objection petition. It has been prayed by the objector that the execution application of the insurance company may be dismissed because the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence at the time of the accident. In my view this objection petition is liable to be dismissed because the objections now being taken in execution proceedings could be taken only when the claim petition itself was pending and respondents were given opportunity to defend the claim of the claimant on all possible grounds as well ags that of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence. I, therefore, dismiss the objection petition. "

( 2 ) THE appeal filed by the appellant as well as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 have been jointly taken up for disposal.

( 3 ) THE bone of contention raised by the appellant in the appeal as well as in the application is that the appellant could not prove the HTV licence which was in his power and possession due to the negligence of the counsel, then, appearing for the appellant. It is not in dispute that at the time of seizure by the police, the driver of the offending vehicle has produced the driving driving licence meant for driving LMV (NT) and no HTV licence was found in his possession. To prove this fact that the driver was in possession of LMV licence, the insurance company had produced a witness from the Office of Mot