( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ramachandra raju, the Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri L Venugopal, representing chalia Dhananjaya, the Counsel for respondents. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner had preferred the present revision petition aggrieved by the order made in LA. No. 438 of 2003 in O. S. No. 481 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, bhimavaram. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed the said application under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience, to summon the Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram, to produce the original Will dated 24. 6. 1992 document No. 100 of 1992, executed by penmatsa China Venkatraju. The said application was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter in detail. The learned judge, in fact, virtually prima facie had decided the validity of the Will making certain observations and ultimately, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. ( 4 ) IT is stated that the registered Will executed by Penmatsa China Venkatraju was lost and a notice was served to produce the original Will, which is said to be in the custody of the respondents and they have not produced the same. It is also stated that the respondents virtually had admitted the execution of the said Will. The certified copy of the said Will was marked as Ex. A2. It is true that normally when certified copy of the Will had already been marked, summoning of the original may not be necessary. ( 5 ) ORDER XVI of the Code deals with the summoning and attendance of witnesses. Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code deals with summons to produce document, which reads as hereunder:"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. "order XVI Rule 7 deals with power to require persons present in the Court to give evidence or to produce document, which reads as hereunder:"power to require persons present in Court to give evidence or produce document :-Any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce any document then and there in his possession or power. " ( 6 ) IT is needless to say that appreciation of evidence already on record regarding validity or otherwise of the Will, need not be gone into at this stage. However, the learned Judge had recorded certain reasons. It is also needless to say that Courts ordinarily do not deny opportunity to summon documents which may be relevant. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner-applicant had thought it fit to summon the original will. It is needless to say that the burden is on her to prove and establish the Will on the strength of which the suit is based. Merely because the certified copy had been marked may not be a ground to deny the said opportunity, since it may be that the original may have been looked into while deciding or appreciating the validity or otherwise of the Will in question. It is true that even provisions of the Order XVI rules 6 and 7 of the Code appears to be slightly different and whether to permit the witnesses for producing the document to be examined or not may not be decided at the appropriate stage. ( 8 ) IT is suffice to state for the present purpose that refusing summoning of the original Will by the learned Judge recording certain reasons in relation to the validity or otherwise of the certified copy of the Will already marked, may not be sustainable in the facts and circumstances. ( 9 ) HENCE, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above so far as it relates to summoning of the original will from the custody of the Sub-Registrar is concerned. No costs.