Judgment :- The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether poundage is collectable in respect of a sale conducted by a Commissioner appointed by a court in a partition suit for division of properties between parties thereto. In the case under revision the Subordinate Judge has held that “poundage” exclusively will come under the ‘expenses of sale’ and form part of the costs and that there is no distinction between the sale conducted by Nazir and that conducted by the Commissioner as regards levy of poundage. In that view, Rs. 2072-50 being the amount of poundage was called upon to be paid by the petitioner. Against that order, this revision petition has been filed. It has first to be considered what ‘poundage’ is and why it is collected. In Parvathi Ammal v. Govindaswami Pillai A.I.R. 1963 Andhra Pradesh 13 it has been observed thus: “Poundage is the fee which is levied in England by the Sheriff as remuneration for his service. In this country, as the officers of the court conducting the sales are paid a fixed salary, a certain percentage of the purchase money is taken for purchasing stamps. In effect the fee is a charge paid by the decree holder for the services he obtains from the court. In England as well as in this country, this fee is taken out of the sale proceeds.” The questions as to what the nature of poundage is, and whether it is payable even in respect of sales conducted by Commissioners appointed by court, have been considered in two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court: In Asis Khaioon v. Suraya Begum A.I.R. 1963 Andhra Pradesh 13 the question arose whether poundage could be collected even in respect of sales effected through a private auctioneer; the learned Judges, while assenting to the proposition contained in Parwathi Ammal v. Govindaswami Pillai 39 Mad. 803, have observed as follows: “When the judgment debtor gets his property sold through a private auctioneer, no service is rendered by the court to entitle it to collect a fee as commission which is described as the poundage. 803, have observed as follows: “When the judgment debtor gets his property sold through a private auctioneer, no service is rendered by the court to entitle it to collect a fee as commission which is described as the poundage. There is no other rule which authorises the collection of poundage out of the sale proceeds deposited under O. XXI R. 83, C.P.C. We are therefore, not persuaded that there is any warrant for deduction of any amount towards poundage when property is sold under O. XXI, R. 83 C.P.C.” To the same effect is the decision in Anantha Sambaiah v. Venkoba Rao A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 91. There, the learned Judges have held that an Advocate Receiver appointed under O. XL, R. 1, C.P.C. not being an officer of the court on a fixed salary, no poundage is collectable. I am of opinion that the same principle will apply in a case where a Commissioner has been appointed by the court to conduct the sale on the spot and his remuneration is also fixed and paid. The order for payment of poundage by the purchaser cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed. No costs. In case the poundage has been collected, it is ordered to be refunded.