Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 41, Rule 27–Scope–Only if there is a satifactory explanation for the non-production before the original Court, i.e., despite exercise of due diligence or the same was not within the knowledge of the party or it could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence, could there be an acceptance of the document at the appellate stage–In the present case, there was not explanation by the owner of vehicle or the driver of vehicle–The transport vehicle driving licence produced by the driver did not have an endorsement–Driver also did not have a claim that he had undergone a training as prescribed under the Rules–This raises genuine suspicion over the veracity of the certificate produced at the appellate stage–Furthermore, there is no serial number of issuance in the document nor is there a round seal of institution–Declined to rely upon the document.
