JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 28.3.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2015, whereby the application of petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and the respondents are the defendants. 3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction against the defendants seeking to restrain them from causing interference in the suit property owned by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendants are laying electricity transmission line through the land of the plaintiffs and from above the trees standing thereon. 4. The suit is being contested by the defendants. The parties have already led their evidence. After closure of defendants’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents. The plaintiffs submitted in the application that before the institution of the suit, a correspondence had been received from the defendants, the contents of which amounted to admission of defendants on the factum of existence of trees on the suit land. It was also submitted that even after filing of the suit, the defendants had issued a notice to the plaintiffs seeking permission to lope the tree branches over the suit land. The plaintiffs, thus, made request for placing on record the correspondence so received from defendants to prove the factum of existence of trees on the suit land. 5. The defendants contested the application by asserting that the application was moved at a belated stage only to linger on the proceedings of the suit. It was submitted that no correspondence was issued by the defendants as alleged in the application. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled for any injunction in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, which authorise the defendants to lay transmission lines even over the private properties. According to defendants, the plaintiffs could be entitled to any other relief permissible in law in case they were able to prove any damage to suit property or the trees existing thereon. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. According to defendants, the plaintiffs could be entitled to any other relief permissible in law in case they were able to prove any damage to suit property or the trees existing thereon. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. The stage of the suit is necessarily to be considered keeping in view the prayer made by the plaintiffs in their application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC. The prayer so made is reproduced hereunder: “It is, therefore, prayed that the submissions made above may kindly be considered and the application of the applicant may please be allowed and he may please be allowed to place on record the above said documents and prove the same accordingly keeping in view the detailed submissions made hereinabove in the interest of justice.” 8. It is evident from the above noted prayer that the plaintiffs not only wanted to place on record the documents detailed in the application, but also was seeking permission to prove the same. In a civil suit, placing on record of some documents without being proved in accordance with law will be a futile exercise. 9. The parties, in the instant case, have already led their evidence. The allowance of prayer of plaintiffs will necessary mean allowing him to lead additional evidence, which is impermissible in law after omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18 of the CPC, from statute book through an amendment, which came into effect in the year 2002. Even otherwise, plaintiffs had not made out any special case for allowing them to lead additional evidence by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 10. As per plaintiffs, one of the document sought to be produced and proved by them, had its existence even prior to filing of the suit and another came into being during pendency thereof. As per the plaintiffs, these documents were issued by the defendants. That being so, the plaintiffs could have easily confronted the witnesses of defendants with such documents. It is not the case of plaintiffs that the documents were not available with them. 11. Thus, the prayer so made by the plaintiffs before learned trial Court has rightly been rejected being belated. In result, the petition is dismissed being without any merits. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.