Under Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code, the judgment debtor is required to make two payments to set aside a sale: compensation to the auction purchaser and the decretal amount. Poundage is not included in these payments and should only be paid after the sale is set aside.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question relating to the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and it arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) IN execution of the decree made in S. C. S. No. 94 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Gurazala, for Rs. 300. 00 two acres of land belonging to the petitioner was sold on 24-9-1957 for a sum of Rs. 68o. 00. On 19-10-1957, the petitioner (Judgment-debtor) deposited a sum of Rs. 363. 00 towards compensation payable to the auction-purchaser under Clause (a), Order 21 Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and for payment to the decree-holder the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for recovery of which the sale was ordered. The balance evidently represented the poundage payable by the judgment-debtor.

( 3 ) AN objection was taken by the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser that the deposit made by the judgment-debtor fell short by Rs. 6-91 np. and consequently the sale could not be set aside. It must be mentioned here that the amount of Rs. 363. 00 could be said to be short by Rs. 6-91 only if the poundage payable by the judgment-debtor was also taken into consideration. Consequent on this objection, the judgment-debtor deposited a further sum of Rs. 10-46np. with a prayer that the delay in this behalf might be condoned. The attitude adopted by the decree-holder was that the balance of the amount might be accepted as having been deposited in time, the delay condoned and the sale set aside, while the auction-purchaser resisted the application.

( 4 ) THE trial Court being of opinion that it was open to the decree-holder to waive the objection, excused the delay and set aside the sale.

( 5 ) ON appeal by the auction-purchaser, the Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the application to set aside the sale in the view that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in depositing the amount to make up the deficit in the amount payable as mentioned in the sale proclamation since the waiver was not within thirty days of the sale. It is this view of the Subordinate Judge that is challenged before us in this Civil Revision Petition.

( 6 ) WE feel that it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the question as to the impact of the consent of the decree-holder to the receipt of the balance after thirty days, under Order 21. Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code in view of the fact that the amount originally deposited was quite sufficient to cover the compensation payable to the auction-purchaser and also to pay off the decree-holder. It should be borne in mind that the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation was Rs. 302-11-6 and the amount payable to the auction-purchaser by way of compensation was Rs. 35. 00 aggregating Rs 363-11-6. As we have already stated, the sum of Rs. 363. 00 was more than adequate to pay the compensation to the auction-purchaser and the decretal amount as mentioned in the proclamation of sale to the decree-holder. Obviously, the parties proceeded on the assumption that poundage should also be included in the deposit to be made under Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code. It is this impression that was responsible for all the confusion and trouble in the case.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, there can be little doubt on the language of Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and the relevant rules of the Civil Rules of Practice that in order to entitle the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code only two payments have to be made, namely, (i) compensation to the auction-purchaser equivalent to five per cent of the purchase-money and (ii) the decretal amount as indicated in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered for being paid to the decree-holder. We cannot import into this provision of law the payment of poundage which should only follow the setting aside of the sale as is clear from Rule 203 of the