Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Surendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Adnan Ahmad and Ajay Shukla took due interest and Shri R.C. Sharma, learned Counsel also assisted the Court.

2. The present revision has been filed against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a misc. application. This Court has already held in the case of Virendra Yadav v. Ramesh and another rendered in Civil Revision No. 120 of 2016 that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked against the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on misc. applications before deciding the claim petition finally.

3. The application on which the impugned order has been passed can be said to be an application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. by virtue of Rule 221 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is applicable in respect of the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. For ready reference Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. is extracted below :

“6. Summons to produce document.—Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.”

4. Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. Clearly empowers and provides for summoning of documents which may be necessary for the adjudication of claims filed before the claim Tribunal.

5. The Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shashi Prabha Sharma and others, 2015(7) ADJ 277 (FB) has already held that the right of defence available to insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is fully available once the insurer is called upon by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim. In the instant case, the insurance company has raised a doubt about the original driving licence of the driver which was possessed by him while driving the offending vehicle No. U.P. 53 - 9790. The claim-petitioner has placed reliance upon the renewed licence issued at Mirzapur, U.P. which makes a reference to the original driving licence No. 223/CAL/ 75 issued on 27.1.1975 by the licensing authority at Calcutta.

6. Denial of a document placed reliance upon by the claimant in the nature of driving licence is within the scope of defence envisaged under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but seeking production of such a documents as per the procedure applicable to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a question that has cropped up in the present proceedings.

7. Renewal of driving licence is regulated under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that any licensing authority on an application being made shall renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly apply for the renewal of a driving licence countrywide meaning thereby that a driving licence issued in one State can be renewed in another State by the competent authority. Once a driving licence is issued in one State and renewed in other State, the rules applicable in this behalf would be Central Rules framed by the Central Government. The Central Government has already framed the rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Rule 18 of the Central Rules, in its present form do not require any verification by the licensing authority for the purpose of renewal of the licence, therefore, renewed driving licence does not qualify the removal of doubt in respect of original licence within the scope of statute and its application.

8. Form 54 provided under the Central Rules when read in the light of Rule 1