ORDER : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. In this civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the unsuccessful petitioner- 1st defendant assails the order, dated 08.07.2019, of the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in I.A. No. 155 of 2019 in OS. No. 248 of 2011. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner - 1st defendant ['1st defendant', for short] and of Sri K. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent -plaintiff ['plaintiff, for short]. I have perused the material record. 3. From the pleadings, contents of the material documents and submissions made, the following introductory facts are perceptible. 4. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant (since died) for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares by metes & bounds and according to good & bad qualities and allotment of one such separated share to the plaintiff and for other reliefs. The 1st defendant having filed a written statement is resisting the suit. In the written statement, the 1st defendant inter alia contended verbatim as follows:- 'In-fact, the plaint schedule property belongs to Koganti Padmini Kumari and she is no other than the maternal aunt of this defendant and the said K. Padmini Kumari during her life time she used to live with her father and at that time she executed Will on 05.09.1999 bequeathing her property in favour of her brother Koganti Vishnu Vardhana Rao i.e. the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant, only by enjoying the fruits and income aroused out of that property and without having any alienation rights over the suit schedule property as life interest and after his demise out of that an extent of Ac. 3.40 cts were bequeathed to this defendant as absolute owner and the remaining Ac. 1.00 was bequeathed to the issues of the plaintiff each got Ac. 3.40 cts were bequeathed to this defendant as absolute owner and the remaining Ac. 1.00 was bequeathed to the issues of the plaintiff each got Ac. 0.50 cts.' During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant filed the subject IA under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to direct the plaintiff to cause production of the said original Will executed by his paternal aunt and to permit the 1st defendant to give secondary evidence in respect of the said Will by producing a Photostat copy of the said Will, on the failure of the plaintiff so to do. The said petition was resisted by the plaintiff. On merits and by the order impugned in this revision, the trial Court dismissed the said petition of the -1st defendant. 5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the IA. 6. The case of the 1st defendant and the submissions made on his behalf in support of his above said request, in brief, are as follows:- 'He filed a detailed written statement taking a plea that his maternal aunt Padmini Kumari executed a Will, on 05.09.1999, in a sound and disposing state of mind. In the written statement, he also stated about the bequests under the said Will. On her death and on the death of his father, he acquired absolute rights over the property, that is, over Ac. 3.40 cents, as per the bequests under the Will. Thereafter, he obtained pattadar pass book and title deed book from the revenue authorities basing on the said Will. While so, the plaintiff has taken the said original Will from the 1st defendant at the time of mutation of the properties in revenue records. Thus, the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff. 1st defendant is only having a Photostat copy of the said Will. Earlier, the plaintiff filed IA. No. 897 of 2012 to direct the 1st defendant to produce the original Will falsely alleging that it is in the custody of this defendant. This defendant filed a counter in the said application stating that the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff. The production of the original Will is necessary to prove the case of this defendant. This defendant filed a counter in the said application stating that the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff. The production of the original Will is necessary to prove the case of this defendant. He was also advised to request the Court to receive the Photostat copy of the Will on record as secondary evidence as the plaintiff is having custody of the original Will and has not produced the same before the Court Hence, the petition is filed to direct the plaintiff to cause production of the said original Will executed by his paternal aunt; and, on the failure of the plaintiff so to do, to permit the 1st defendant to give secondary evidence in respect of the said Will by producing a Photostat copy of the said Will.' 7. The case of the plaintiff and the submissions made on her behalf, are as under:- 'The 1st defendant has no respect for truth and law. There is no consistency in his case. He has taken different stands at different times. The petition is filed to delay the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff earlier filed IA. No. 897 of 2012 to direct the 1st defendant to produce the original Will, dated 05.09.1999, propounded by him. The plaintiff also filed IA. No. 1007 of 2018 to grant leave to examine the Tahasildar, Vemuru and receive the documents produced by him. In I.A. No. 897 of 2012 the 1st defendant filed a counter stating that the original Will is with the plaintiff. However, the said petitions filed by the plaintiff are not pressed. For the first time, the 1st defendant stated in the counter filed in IA. No. 897 of 2012 that the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff. Either in the notices exchanged or in the written statement, such a plea was not taken. The plaintiff is contending from the beginning that the Will set up by the 1st defendant is a forged and concocted document. Padmini Kumari died intestate. IA. No. 897 of 2012 is filed by stating the above facts and to direct the 1st defendant to produce the original Will as production of the original Will is necessary as the plaintiff may be required to make a request to send the alleged Will to an expert for an opinion. Padmini Kumari died intestate. IA. No. 897 of 2012 is filed by stating the above facts and to direct the 1st defendant to produce the original Will as production of the original Will is necessary as the plaintiff may be required to make a request to send the alleged Will to an expert for an opinion. Only after such application is filed by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, for the first time, falsely stated in the counter filed in the said application that the original Will is with the plaintiff. Since the case of the plaintiff is that the said Padmini Kumari died intestate and that the Will is forged, the petition filed by the 1st defendant is liable for dismissal. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.' 8. Now the points for considerations are: 1. Whether valid & sufficient grounds are made out by the 1st defendant to give a direction to the plaintiff to cause production of the original Will, dated 05.09.1999, said to have been executed by Padmini Kumari? 2. On failure of the plaintiff to produce the original Will, in the event such a direction to produce the Will is given to the plaintiff, whether the Ist defendant can be permitted to give evidence in respect of the above said Will by according permission to file Photostat copy of the said Will? 3. To what relief? POINTS: 9. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. To begin with, it is to be noted that Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence with regard to documents may be given. The Section postulates that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it and when after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it. Therefore, the burden prima facie is upon the 1st defendant to show that the original Will is in the possession or appears to be in possession of the plaintiff. Then only his requests made in the present IA deserves consideration by the Court. Therefore, the burden prima facie is upon the 1st defendant to show that the original Will is in the possession or appears to be in possession of the plaintiff. Then only his requests made in the present IA deserves consideration by the Court. In the suit for partition of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, having filed a written statement and having inter alia placed reliance on the aforestated Will, has filed along with the written statement a Photo copy of the said Will. Under the amended provisions of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when a defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession, in support of his defence, he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce it in Court along with the written statement. However, if it is the case of the defendant that any such document is not in possession of the defendant, he shall state in whose possession or power it is, wherever possible. The 1st defendant did not state in his written statement that he is not having possession of the original Will and that it is in the possession of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff brings to the notice of the Court that notices are exchanged prior to the institution of the suit. He submits that when a notice, dated 22.10.2010 was issued a reply notice, dated 10.11.2010, was issued and that thereafter a rejoinder notice, dated 18.11.2010, was issued and that in reply to the rejoinder, on behalf of the plaintiff and others, a further notice, dated 10.01.2011, was issued and that in the said notice, it was specifically stated that there is no such Will as alleged in the notice and that the same is false, forged and fabricated and that the document was got up by the 1st defendant with ulterior motive to grab the property and that in the said reply notice, dated 10.01.2011, a request was made to send a copy of the alleged Will for perusal but the said request was not also complied with. He also points out that in the rejoinder notice, dated 18.11.2010, there is no mention of the date of the Will said to have been allegedly executed by K. Padmini Kumari and that when the plaintiff filed a petition denying the existence of the Will and to direct the 1st defendant to produce the alleged original Will then only the 1st defendant for the first time falsely stated that the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff. He also pointed out that the 1st defendant is claiming that mutation of the property was affected in his name as per the bequests in the Will deed; but the revenue record (a copy of which is produced along with the material papers of the plaintiff) does not disclose that the basis for mutation is the alleged Will. Contending accordingly, it is further submitted that all the circumstances on wholesome consideration make it manifest that not only the Will is forged and that it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the alleged original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff and that, therefore, the 1st defendant failed to make out a semblance of case to direct the plaintiff to produce the alleged original Will. Be it noted that except stating that the original Will is in the custody of the plaintiff, 1st defendant could not substantiate the said bald plea to come to a safe conclusion that the plaintiff is having possession of the alleged original Will. On the other hand, the contentions of the plaintiff referred to supra, which merit consideration, clinchingly show that the plaintiff is not having possession of the alleged original Will. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that no valid and sufficient grounds are made out by the 1st defendant in support of his request to direct the plaintiff to cause production of the alleged original Will. As a sequel to this finding, it must be held that on the ground that the original Will is with the plaintiff and that he is not producing the same, the defendant cannot be permitted to give secondary evidence in respect of the said alleged Will by producing a Photostat copy of the said alleged Will. Accordingly, this Court further finds that no valid and sufficient grounds are made out warranting interference with the order impugned. Points are accordingly answered. 11. Accordingly, this Court further finds that no valid and sufficient grounds are made out warranting interference with the order impugned. Points are accordingly answered. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.