UNNAMALAI AMMAL Vs. P A J SEYYADU MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against an order of the learned Subordinate judge of Tuticorin, who rejected an applications made by a third party court auction purchaser for refund of the poundage paid by him on the sale being set aside on 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 O. 21, R. 93 is concerned, even that in my opinion cannot apply to this case. It runs:

(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) at p. 292)thus:

(3.) THE other relevant rule which may be referred to is rule 203 of the Civil Rules of Practice. This rule runs: