249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3590-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Tahir ...Petitioner Versus Jitender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-18642-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated 05.09.2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 05.09.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, whereby the application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence in case No.73 dated 28.05.2015 titled as “Jitender Vs. Tahir and others”, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wishes to prove and produce driving licence bearing No.NL- 01201300044128 which had been issued by the Licensing Authority i.e., District Transport Officer, Kohima on 14.10.2013. It is submitted that since the petitioner is the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the production of the said driving licence is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company have opposed the present revision petition and have submitted that the petitioner is producing fake documents one after the other. It is submitted that earlier, the licence produced by the petitioner during the course of trial was also stated to have been issued on 14.10.2013 and when the evidence came on record in the form of affidavit of District Transport Officer, Nagaland to the effect that the said licence was never issued by the said office, then the petitioner, after his evidence was closed, moved an application for additional evidence to bring on record the present driving licence, which, although bears separate number but is also stated to have been issued on 14.10.2013. It is submitted that no person can have two driving licence at the same time and thus, reliance sought to be placed upon two driving licences stated to have been issued on the same day i.e., 14.10.2013 in favour of the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner is relying upon false and fabricated documents. It is submitted that even original of the subsequent licence has also not been produced and only photocopy of the same has been produced, which is inadmissible in evidence. It has been pointed out that the petitioner is stated to be a resident of Palwal, Haryana whereas the driving licence is alleged to have been issued by the District Transport Officer, Kohima, which is not permissible in law and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner, who is resident of Palwal, Haryana has got his licence issued from Nagaland.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. The petitioner is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the time of leading his evidence had tendered in evidence Ex.R1 which was photocopy of his driving licence shown to have been issued by the Government of Nagaland on 14.10.2013 and stated to be valid upto 13.11.2017 and the said driving licence was bearing No.50752/TV/T/2013. It is also not in dispute that when Insurance Company had led its e