JD's property was sold in execution of decree. Auction purchaser purchased this property. The auction sale was not made absolute.
At that stage, the JD filed a petition for setting aside the sale under O. 21, R. 89, C.P.C.
JD paid the entire sale money including solatium as required by R. 89 (1) (a) and (b) of the Code.
But the EP court insisted to pay the Pountage charges paid by the purchaser.
JD challenged the order before HC in Revision, stating that 'pountage charges paid by the purchaser to the court, should be refunded to the purchaser' and therefore the JD need not pay this pountage to the purchaser under Rule 203 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
HC didn't accept this view of JD.
It is not in dispute that poundage is in the nature of a commission to the State for the purpose of conducting the sale.
That poundage, which goes to the State, should not be last when a sale is set aside.
So, it is only proper that the judgment debtor, at whose instance the sale is set aside, should be made to bring into Court an amount equal to the poundage and that has got to be refunded to the auction purchaser when a sale is set aside under O. 21, R. 89, C.P.C.
Hence Revision dismissed.
Guttala Chandra Rao vs Dubburi Veera Venkata Satyavathi, on 16 January, 1979
Equivalent citations: AIR 1979 AP 303
No comments:
Post a Comment