1. We do not think that an order under Order XXI, Rule 93, of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of a third party purchaser is a question between the parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, as that order by itself has no legal effect on the rights and liabilities as between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor.

2. The preliminary objection that no appeal lies must, therefore, he upheld.

3. We are asked to treat the appeal as a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we use our discretion under the circumstances in the appellants favour in accordance with his request.

4. It is clear that the appellant (judgment-debtor) did not get any notice to show cause why he (the judgment-debtor) should not be held liable to pay the poundage fees to the purchaser at the cancelled sale. The order passed against him was, therefore, passed through the Courts acting illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and ought to be set aside, especially as the purchaser did not pray for the refund of the poundage from the judgment-debtor. It is, again, very doubtful whether the jud