(1.) THIS is a reference from the learned District Munsiff, Kurnool, under Order 46, R. 1, C.P.C., for decision on the following question, viz., "Whether in a sale held by a Receiver appointed under Order 40, R. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, poundage as required under Rule Civil Rules of Practice, is payable on the sale amount"? It may be stated that there are two petitioners and twenty-nine respondents in the petition filed by plaintiffs, petitioners herein, for appointment of a Receiver to sell a Ginning Factory involved in the litigation. Evidently, certain respondents were not served. THIS reference has been pending since 1962, and even at this stage except respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 represented By their counsel Mr. Bhujanga Rao, the other respondents did not appear. Mr. Bhujanga Rao has drawn our attention to a decision of one of us in Company Appln. No. 68 of 196 3, D/-11-9-1964 (Andh Pra), which deals with this particular question referred to us. In that matter, it was held that poundage need not be collected in sales by persons who are not officers of the Court. The principle upon which poundage has to be collected has been laid down in Parvati Ammal v. Govindaswami Pillai, ILR 39 Mad 803 at p. 807 = (AIR 1916.Mad 290 at p. 292). THIS principle has been followed by a Bench of this Court in Aziz Khatoon v. Surayya Begum, 1962 (2) ALT 414 = (AIR 1963 Andh Pra 13). In Parvati Animals case, ILR 39 Mad 803 = (AIR 191B Mad 290) the principle has been stated thus :--