( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 01-8-2001 passed by the learned Junior civil Judge, Medak, in O. S. No. 8 of 1998.

( 2 ) WHEN a Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 24-4-1997 was sought to be introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, while leading secondary evidence through p. W. 4, on an objection taken by the adversary under the impugned order the learned Judge directed the document to be impounded under Section 35 of the Indian stamp Act ( the Act for brevity) on the premise that the document should be stamped as if it were a sale inasmuch as the possession was delivered under the document in view of Article 47-A of schedule I-A of the said Act. Earlier, it appears, in LA. No. 40 of 2001 the plaintiff- revision petitioner was permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing Xerox copy of the original agreement of sale dated 24-4-1997. It is discernible from the order that the original agreement itself was executed on a plain paper and since it was lost, the plaintiff sought to adduce secondary evidence as aforesaid. When the plaintiff was permitted to adduce secondary evidence under an order dated 08-04-2001 in i. A. No. 40 of 2001 by the learned Juni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document