Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The court has the power to order the production of a document at any time during the pendency of a suit, even before an order of discovery is obtained under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!)
• The decision is supported by the provisions of O. 11, R. 14, C. P. C. and the interpretations of the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!)
• The court found that the order under O. 11, R. 14 can be made without an application for discovery being made under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
• The court also dismissed the civil revision petition against the order to direct the 4th defendant to produce the original will. [judgement_act_referred][Final Decision] (!)
• The issues involved the interpretation of O. 11, R. 14, C. P. C. and whether the petitioner could be compelled to produce the document. [judgement_act_referred][Issues]
• The court held that the power to order the production of a document exists at any time during the pendency of a suit, and the order can be made even before an order of discovery is obtained under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. [judgement_act_referred][Ratio Decidendi]
• The civil revision petition was dismissed with costs, and the application to direct the 4th defendant to produce the original will was also dismissed. [Final Decision] (!)
• This is an application to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali in I. A. No. 1004 of 1955 in O. S. No. 13 of 1955 directing the petitioner herein to produce the certified copy of the will. (!)
• The petitioner stated in the counter-affidavit that she obtained a certified copy of the will and that her relations were in possession of the same. (!)
• The learned Subordinate Judge directed the 1st defendant to produce the document within 10 days from the date of the order. (!)
• The first question argued for the petitioner is that an order under O. 11, R. 14 cannot be made without an application for discovery being made under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. (!)
• Order 11, R. 14, C. P. C. enacts that it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendencey of any suit to order the production. (!)
• The words "at any time" are very significant and important. (!)
• Order 11, R. 14 does not provide that the order for production should be made only after an order of discovery is obtained under O. 11, R. 12, C. P. C. (!)
• This view is supported by two direct decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Allahabad High Court. (!) (!)
• In Ram Hari De v. Niranjan Krishna Das and Co., 50 Cal WN 845 (A), Majumdar J. discussed the several provisions and arrived at the conclusion that the Court has power to make the order under O. 11, R. 14 even before the written statement is filed or the order for discovery is made. (!)
• A similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Sri Niwas v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 251. (!)
• The respondent admits that the document is in her power or custody being in the possession of her relations. (!)
• It is not stated in the counter-affidavit filed in the lower Court that she is unable to obtain production of that document from her relations. (!)
• The plaintiff has not chosen to prefer a civil revision petition against the said order dismissing the plaintiffs application to direct 4th defendant to produce the original will. (!)
• It is not open to the 1st defendant to file a civil revision petition as against that order. (!)
• This Civil Revision Petition is consequently dismissed. (!)
• There will be no order as to costs in this civil revision petition. (!)
• Revision petitions dismissed. (!)