IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 53 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.5.2011 Vinod Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus Ranjan Roy and another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 NO. For the petitioner: Mr. Mohan Singh vice Mr. B.N.Misra, Advocate. For the respondent: None. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 6.9.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.IV, Shimla rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for exhibiting the documents mark A and B. 2. These documents are photo copies of the bills allegedly issued to the petitioner by the H.P.State Electricity Board. No doubt, when the official of the Electricity Board came to testify he stated that the record has been destroyed but the original had to be in the custody of the consumer 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 i.e. the petitioner and there is not a whisper that such bill(s) has been lost or destroyed. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected. 3. I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 26th May, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge