ORDER :- This revision has been preferred against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, who rejected an application made by a third party court auction purchaser for refund of the poundage paid by him on the sale being set aside en an application under Or. 21 rule 90 C. P. C. The petition was headed "Under Section 151, Or. 21 rule 93 and Section 47 C. P. C." Of course Section 47 C. P. C. cannot apply in this case, the petitioner not being a party to the proceedings. So far as 0. 21, R. 93 is concerned, even that in my opinion cannot apply to this case. It runs:

"Where a sale of immoveable property is set aside under rule 92, the purchaser shall be entitled to an order for repayment of his purchase money, with or without interest as the court may direct, against any person to whom it has been paid".

It is nobody's case that the poundage is paid to any other party. It is certainly not paid to the decree holder or to the judgment debtor.

2. As regards what is poundage, and to whom it goes there is a lucid exposition of it, if I may say so with respect, in a decision of this court in Parvathi Ammal v. Govindasami Pillai, ILR 39 Mad 803 at p. 807 : (AIR 1916 Mad 290 (2)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document