The court emphasized the necessity for parties to present evidence in support of their claims, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained, especially under the Indian Evidence Act.

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. 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, seekin