On 31.01.2006 the following order was made by this Court:

"Ground Nos.8 (a) to (e) raised substantial question of law. Admit."

The said grounds read as hereunder:-

(1) Whether the original agreement of sale stood proved through the secondary evidence in the form of Ex.A-2 and the question of stamp duty on the original does not arise?

(2) Whether the bar against receiving secondary evidence of unstamped documents extends to cases where the document is lost from the custody of the Court?

(3) Whether the plaintiff can be made to suffer on account of the loss of the document, which has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer from the custody of the court on the principle of actus curiae neninem gravabit?

(4) Whether the defendant can raise an objection with regard to insufficiency of stamp having acquiesced in stamping the copy of the document on consent of both the counsel?

(5) Whether Ex.A-2 copy of the original document impounded can be looked into in view of the judgment reported in 1992(3) ALT 575?

2. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, and A.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file