ORDER : The petitioner/defendant has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Mandla in Civil Suit No.5-A/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC has been dismissed. 2. A suit has been filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff pleaded that the Municipal Council, Mandla granted lease in his favour in respect of the suit property. The same was terminated by the then Collector in the year 1997. The respondent had leased out the suit property to the applicant. However, the respondent filed a suit for delivery of possession, injunction and mesne profit against the applicant. 3. During the pendency of suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC seeking a direction from the trial Court to direct the respondent No.1 to produce certain documents viz. 'patta', orders of Municipality, order of Collector not granting sanction, applications and receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Union of India vs. Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal, AIR 1953 Allahabad 689. 4. The respondent No.1 before the trial Court denied the averments of the application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC and submitted that such documents are not in his possession. 5. The trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC on the ground that the documents sought to be produced are public documents, which can easily be obtained by the petitioner from the offices of the Municipality and Collector. The respondent has specifically denied possession of such documents. 6. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, no interference in the impugned order is warranted by this Court. Hence, the same is accordingly dismissed.