ORDER 1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 4.9.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Order 11 rule 12, CPC filed by defendant-tenant. 2. Suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need is pending consideration before the trial Court. During the course of trial, counsel for the defendant has filed an application under Order 11 rule 12, CPC seeking direction from the trial Court to call upon the plaintiff to produce the evidence or proof as regards designation of the plaintiff as senior advocate, as well as, details of other properties of his ownership within the municipal limits. 3. While replying to the aforesaid application, it has been contended before the trial Court that the plaintiff since is having a long standing at the Bar, therefore, words “Varishtha Vakil” were used in the plaint. Besides, as regards details of other properties available to the plaintiff, the trial Court has observed that plaintiff has categorically stated that he does not have any other alternative accommodation and all documents relevant for the suit have already been filed before the trial Court. There is no other document available with him. Hence, under such circumstances, no direction can be issued for production of documents as regards available properties. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rejected the application. 4. Having perused the order so passed, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error while rejecting the application. Suffice it to observe that if the plaintiff himself has stated that he has no document other than the one filed in the list of documents in the suit relating to availability of accommodation with him, no further indulgence was warranted under Order 11 rule 12 calling upon the plaintiff to produce documents as regards availability of alternative accommodation and, therefore, the trial Court was justified having rejected the same. That apart, if plaintiff has styled himself as “Varistha Vakil”, that by itself would not mean that he is a designated senior counsel, as Advocates who have put in long years of practice at the Bar are usually respected and addressed as “Varistha Vakil”. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.