JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner/2 nd defendant for challenging the order passed by the First Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum in IA Nos.36/2025 & 37/2025 in O.S.No.69/2015, for having rejected the application for reviewing its order dated 30.05.2025 and dismissing the application for production of documents. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. Counsel, Sri. K. Ramakumar, appearing for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent filed a suit against the petitioner's husband, Durairaj (deceased) for realisation of money. Whereas, the deceased defendant filed written statement by denying the averments for receiving any payment of loan from the plaintiff and he further denied the execution of loan agreement dated 15.08.2014 mainly on the ground that he was admitted in the Agila Hospital, Karur From 14.08.2014 to 16.08.2014. Therefore, the question of executing the loan agreement does not arise and he also produced an attested copy of the discharge summary of the Agila Hospital, Karur, but, not produced the original document. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant sought permission for production of those documents. It is further contended that the petitioners have obtained information from the State Treasury that the stamp paper, alleged to have been used by the plaintiff for creation of agreement, has been sold through a stamp vendor one Varghese on 23.12.2013 itself. But the agreement was created on 15.08.2014. All the documents have created by the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner wants to produce those documents and examine the witnesses to disprove the documents. The applications were dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an attested copy of the discharge summary, as the original document not able to trace out. The copy of the discharge summary was attested by an Advocate from Tamilnadu. Therefore, to prove the attested copy of the discharge summary, defendant wants to examine the advocate which was denied. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff also filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Karur Police station. Therefore, the petitioner wants to examine the Police officer who registered the FIR which was also not allowed by the trial court. Therefore, to prove the attested copy of the discharge summary, defendant wants to examine the advocate which was denied. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff also filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Karur Police station. Therefore, the petitioner wants to examine the Police officer who registered the FIR which was also not allowed by the trial court. However, these witnesses are necessary for the purpose of proving the defense of the defendant and the Treasury Officer also required to be examined, that was not allowed. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order and also filed an application for reviewing the order dated 30.05.2025 for dispense with the issuance of notice to be reviewed. 5. Per contra, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent has seriously objected the petition mainly on the ground he has no objection for production of any new document and examining new witnesses sought by the petitioner. They were already summoned by the court where the petitioner unable to serve the notice and returned the summons to the Court. Thereafter, issuance of summons was dispensed with by the court. That order wants to be reviewed and that cannot be allowed. The examination of the Police officer is also not a necessary witness to the case of the defendant and the Doctor who wants to examine was already dead. Therefore, the question of reviewing the order for issuing fresh summons need not be required. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. The learned Sr. Counsel further contended that today (30.07.2025) the petitioner counsel filed application along with the discharge summary of the deceased defendant by filing application through son-in-law of the petitioner which is pending and therefore, seeking permission for production of documents not required. The petitioner filed application one after the other for dragging the proceedings. There is a direction issued by this court in an earlier petition, OP(C) No.1308/2023 for speedy disposal. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The points that are arises for consideration are as follows:- i. Whether the order under challenge calls for any interference? 8. There is a direction issued by this court in an earlier petition, OP(C) No.1308/2023 for speedy disposal. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The points that are arises for consideration are as follows:- i. Whether the order under challenge calls for any interference? 8. On careful perusal of the arguments addressed by both the counsel for the parties and the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner and the order under challenge which reveals that though the original defendant filed a written statement by denying the execution of the three loan agreements dated 15.08.2014 and has produced an attested copy of the discharge summary. During the pendency of the Suit, the defendant was dead. The present petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased defendant and she appeared and sought permission to file additional statement which is said to be not allowed. However, it is not in dispute. Previously, this Court issued direction for disposing the Suit within 18 months from the date of application filed by the plaintiff for seeking permission to prosecute the Suit as an indigent person filing application under Order 33 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That application came to be dismissed by the trial court and this Court also upheld the same and a direction was issued. However, subsequent to the dismissal of the application once again the plaintiff approached this Court by filing FAO No.6 of 2024 and that also once again dismissed and stay was granted for 5 months. Therefore, the 5 months time consumed by this Court for disposal of the earlier petition cannot be calculated as a direction to dispose of the matter about 5 months. 9. However, the real controversy between the parties is that the defendant wants to prove the contention taken in the written statement that the defendant did not come to Thiruvananthapuram as on the alleged execution of loan agreement dated 15.08.2014. It is the specific defense by the defendant that on the said date the deceased defendant was admitted in the Agila Hospital, Karur, and was taking treatment from 14.08.2014 to 16.08.2014. That means, the defendant took the contention, a plea of alibi that he was not there in Thiruvananthapuram, he was elsewhere at Karur. It is the specific defense by the defendant that on the said date the deceased defendant was admitted in the Agila Hospital, Karur, and was taking treatment from 14.08.2014 to 16.08.2014. That means, the defendant took the contention, a plea of alibi that he was not there in Thiruvananthapuram, he was elsewhere at Karur. As per Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872, when the defendant or an accused raises a specific contention of plea of alibi, it is the defendant or the accused has to prove the said contention. Therefore, the defendant has the burden to prove the said contention. Of course, the plaintiff who approached the court has to prove the execution of the document and as per the argument addressed by the learned Sr. Counsel, the plaintiff examined herself as a witness and also attesting witnesses of the document on behalf of the plaintiff. Such being the case, the initial burden already discharged by the plaintiff to prove the case as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act . Once the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff, then the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the contention of the plaintiff by rebuttal evidence and also prove the contention taken in the defense. Therefore, the defendant was required to examine the witnesses. However, in order to prove the discharge summary, it is submitted that the Doctor who treated the defendant was dead and the Agila Hospital at Karur also closed. Therefore, no option for the defendant to prove the contention by production of the document before the Court. However, those original document was not produced by the defendant along with the written statement and even along with the IA No.37/2025. But, as per the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel today, the son in-law of the petitioner produced the original discharge summary before the trial court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel for production of said documents cannot be accepted. 10. It is further contended that the alleged stamp paper said to be purchased by the plaintiff is said to be stated in the evidence it was purchased two days prior to the execution of the document. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel for production of said documents cannot be accepted. 10. It is further contended that the alleged stamp paper said to be purchased by the plaintiff is said to be stated in the evidence it was purchased two days prior to the execution of the document. Whereas the defendant has obtained the information through the Right to Information Act, 2005 that the Treasury officer sold the document to one Varghese, a Stamp vendor and he said to be sold on 23.12.2013. Therefore, they want to examine the treasury officer and in order to prove the contention, the examination of the treasury officer/the stamp vendor may be necessary for proving his contention. Therefore, the document sought to be produced before the Court cannot be denied. That apart, the learned counsel also brought into the notice during the cross examination the plaintiff witnesses i.e., PWs 2 & 3 unable to identify the photograph of the deceased defendant. But, the plaintiff was not allowed to mark by the court during the cross examination. Therefore, those photographs required to be produced and marked during the evidence of the defendant, that cannot be denied. Otherwise, the court will not be able to appreciate the evidence on record which was elicited by the defendant counsel in the cross examination of the attesting witness. Therefore, the photographs are also necessary for production before the court. Though, the RTI documents were public documents, should be marked only through the officer who issued the same. Such being the case, summoning of those witnesses, production of those documents cannot be denied. Merely because of this Court issued directions for speedy disposal that cannot be understood without giving proper opportunity to the parties to put forth their contention before the court, closing the matter is nothing but justice hurried is justice buried. Therefore, the trial court ought to have allowed the application for production of documents and also file necessary to issue the summons to the witnesses who are necessary to prove the case of the defendants. Though the police officer is not necessary to prove the complaint filed by the plaintiff, but the doctor who was also dead, therefore, issuing summons to those witnesses cannot be revived. However, issuing summons to the Treasury officer is required to be summoned. Though the police officer is not necessary to prove the complaint filed by the plaintiff, but the doctor who was also dead, therefore, issuing summons to those witnesses cannot be revived. However, issuing summons to the Treasury officer is required to be summoned. Even though, it is closed earlier, the court have power to re-issue summons for the purpose of proving the case of the defendant. Such being the case, I am of the view that the order under challenge required for interference. 11. The other documents such as legal notice, reply notice are also important documents, it should sought to be produced and said to be allowed to production of documents. Whatever documents produced and marked, mere marking is not a proof it is subject to the admissibility and relevancy in evidence. It is needless to mention that at the time of marking the document, plaintiff counsel is right to object the document and the document can be marked subject to the objection and relevancy in evidence, at the time of appreciation of evidence while passing the final judgment. 12. Accordingly this petition is allowed in part. i. The order under challege passed by the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in IA Nos.36/2025 & 37/2025 in O.S.No.69/2015 is hereby set aside; ii. The application, IA 37/25 for production of documents filed by the petitioner is allowed; iii. The application, IA No.36/2025 filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order is allowed in part and permitted to summon the Treasury officer. The defendants shall make an endeavour to take the steps without causing any delay; iv. It is also permitted to examine the Advocate who attested the discharge summary subject to, if the original document is produced, the witnesses need not be examined; and v. The trial court is granted liberty to seek extension of time for disposal of the Suit, if necessary.