M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is the decree-holder-auction purchaser. This application is filed questioning the order passed by the lower court refusing to direct the judgment-debtor-respondent to pay to the petitioner the poundage amount collected at the time of the sale held by the Court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The property whichwas brought to sale was admittedly partnership property of a firm in which there were two partners. The creditor obtained a money decree and brought the properties to sale. As the property was partnership property, law required the procedure under Order XXI, Rule 49 to be followed. Instead of following the same, the decree-holder got the properties sold. Before the same was confirmed, the judgment-debtor-respondent approached this court, and at that stage, the respondent took notice in the High Court and then applied in the lower Court for advancing the date of sale and the date was advanced and sale was held. In the sale, the decree-holder became the auction-purchaser. The matter came up for final hearing before me, and i declared in my judgment rendered in Ranga Reddy vs. Mallesh (in C. R. P. 3458/85 dated 23-7-1986) that the sale was a void sale, inasmuch as the same was contrary to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 49 of the Code of Civil procedure.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, restitution had to follow, on the basis that the salewas void. It was at that stage that the decree-holder-auction purchaser filed the present petition for refund of the poundage, which was approximately in a sum of Rs. 24,000/ -. He impleaded only the present-respondent partner (or his legal representatives) as parties in the Execution Application, but not the other partner, who had supported the sale earlier. The court below refused to direct the respondents to refund the poundage amount. The Court below thought that the petitioner being responsible for the illegal sale, cannot ask for refund of the same from the judgment-debtor. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Parvateesamand the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri K. Venkataramana rao.

( 5 ) IT will be noticed that the sale was held to be invalid under Section47 of C. P. C. on account of non-compliance that the provisions of Order xxi, Rule 49, C. P. C. The question of refund of poundage in cases of setting aside of sales under Order XXI, C. P. C. is dealt with by Rule 203 of the civil Rules of Practice. That rule is not directly in point but gives us the clue to the present case. Rule 203 reads as follows :"203 (1) If the sale is set aside under Or. XXI Rule 89 of the Code, the court may make an order for payment by the judgment-debtor oi the poundage and other costs and interest, if any, not covered by the proclamation of the sale. (2) It the sale is set aside under Or. XXI Rule 90 of the Code, the court shall determine whether any and what party is responsible therefor, and may order such party to pay the cost and expenses of the sale and may make an order that any other party entitled to have the property sold may have the conduct of the sale and may make an order for the resale of the property. (3) If the sale is set aside under Or. XXI Rule 91 of the Code, the court may make an order for payment by the Execution creditor of the poundage and other costs of the sale. "

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the principle involved in Rule 203, it isconvenient to note the meaning of the word poundage .

( 7 ) IN Jowitt s Dictionary of English Law, poundage is defined asfollows :"a fee payable to an officer of a court, or to the public revenue, in respect of services performed by the Officer : It is so called because it is calculated at so much for every pound sterling of the amount with which he was to deal. Thus, a sheriff is entitled to poundage on executing a fieri facias (Sheriff s Act, 1887, Section 20 (2)".

( 8 ) IN Bouvier s Law Dictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document