Judgment 1. On the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned advocate for the petitioner to verify whether the suit is pending or not. 1.1 Learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker for the petitioner submits that Special Civil Suit No.129 of 2001 is pending before the trial court and the next date of hearing is 18.2.2014. 2. Present petition is filed as the learned trial court has rejected the petitioner’s application (Exh.105) to produce certain documents on record. 3. It appears that the respondent – plaintiff had instituted the suit for compensation against the present petitioner. It further appears that the present petitioner has carried out the work of widening the road and in the process, the suit property which is stated to be in possession of the respondent-plaintiff, came to be ‘acquired.’ Hence, plaintiff filed suit for compensation. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker for the petitioner. Respondent, though duly served, has chosen not to appear. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner’s application came to be rejected only on the ground that petitioner could have produced these documents at earlier stage of the suit proceedings. The learned trial court has also referred each of the documents which the petitioner intended to produce. It is true that party should file the documents on which they intend to place reliance along with the pleadings and in any case, at an appropriate stage. Delayed production of the documents may prejudice the other side. 6. Delay itself cannot be said to be a ground in all cases for rejecting the application seeking permission to produce the documents. Thus, causing of prejudice to the other side rather than delay, that is determinative and material. Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that the documents that petitioner intends to produce are the documents of earlier proceedings between the parties and other documents are of the possession of the respondent. In other words, the documents that petitioner sought to produce are not such that it can be said that any prejudice is likely to cause to the respondent. It appears that evidence by plaintiff is recorded and thereafter, the present application to produce the document is filed by the petitioner. In other words, the documents that petitioner sought to produce are not such that it can be said that any prejudice is likely to cause to the respondent. It appears that evidence by plaintiff is recorded and thereafter, the present application to produce the document is filed by the petitioner. In that case also, the plaintiff may be allowed to explain – if he so wishes – about this document by re-entering into the witness box. The petitioner has not sought to produce any such document that would change or alter the nature of the suit or would introduce any new cause or would damage in any manner the case of the plaintiff and thereby, causes prejudice to the other side. That being so, learned trial court has seriously erred in rejecting the application (Exh.105). 7. In view of above, the order passed by the learned trial court below application Exh.105 dated 3.7.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. 8. The Special Civil Suit is of the year 2001. The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible.