JUDGMENT : 1. The present revision is filed questioning the judgment dated 05.07.2011 in CMA No.27 of 2009 passed by Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry confirming the order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in EA No.52 of 2008 in EP No.28 of 2007 in OS No.1283 of 2004. 2. Brief facts : The petitioner is the judgment debtor. A suit OS No.1283 of 2004 was filed for recovery of money and the same was decreed on 14.06.2005. For realization of the decretal amount, the schedule property was auctioned on 02.09.2008 in EP No.28 of 2007. The petitioner then filed EA No.52 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC to set-aside the auction, as he had paid the decretal amount of Rs.45,000/- to the respondent No.1 towards full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount. A full satisfaction memo dated 12.09.2008 was filed into Court on 31.10.2008 by the decree holder. The above application was filed before confirmation of sale by the Court. 3. The respondent No.1/decree holder did not file any counter. The respondent No.2/auction purchaser filed his counter opposing the application and had contended that the sale was conducted on 02.09.2008 and the respondent No.2 was declared as the highest bidder and the respondent No.2 paid the entire bid amount of Rs.3,10,000/- with stamp duty and poundage. It was also contended that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the time as prescribed for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. 4. The Trial Court after hearing the respective Counsels rejected the plea that the application of the petitioner is barred by time and was of the opinion that the limitation prescribed to set-aside sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC is 60 days and not 30 days as contended by the respondent No.2. Though, the Trial Court noticed that the application by the petitioner was filed on 31.10.2008, the application was filed without depositing the poundage amount and that the lodgment schedule was filed before the Court on 04.03.2009 i.e., after lapse of 6 months from the date of auction. Since the petitioner had failed to deposit the 5% of poundage amount as required within 60 days, the application of the petitioner was dismissed. The Appellate Court also took a similar view and dismissed the appeal. Since the petitioner had failed to deposit the 5% of poundage amount as required within 60 days, the application of the petitioner was dismissed. The Appellate Court also took a similar view and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramji, learned Counsel representing Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi, Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. 6. Contentions: The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the full satisfaction memo was filed into Court on 31.10.2008 and unless the Court permits the petitioner to pay the poundage amount of 5%, the petitioner cannot pay the amount into Court. It was further contended that the value of the property as on date is more than Rs.20,00,000/- and that the petitioner would be suffering serious financial loss if the auction of the property is confirmed for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.45,000/-. It is also the contention of the petitioner that once the decretal amount has been paid, the respondent No.2/third party to the suit does not have any locus to seek for confirmation of the sale, as there is no decree to be executed. 7. The Counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the petitioner having not deposited the poundage within the period of limitation prescribed under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, cannot call in question the sale. The respondent No.2 contended that the auction was an open auction and the respondent No.2 had invested his savings and had purchased the property and due to the ongoing litigation, he is unable to realize the property. 8. Issue : The issue that falls for consideration is whether the application of the petitioner could be dismissed on the ground that poundage was not paid within 60 days? 9. Reasoning : There is certain amount of uncertainty as to when the poundage should be paid. The Order 21 Rule 89 CPC only states that sale would be set-aside on payment of decretal amount with 5% poundage. The question is what is this poundage and whether 5% poundage should be paid alongwith decretal amount or after the sale is set-aside. In Parvathi Ammal v. Govindaswami Pillai, AIR 1916 Mad. 290 (2), it was held that poundage is the fee charge by the Court for conducting auction and for costs of stamps purchased by the auction purchaser. The question is what is this poundage and whether 5% poundage should be paid alongwith decretal amount or after the sale is set-aside. In Parvathi Ammal v. Govindaswami Pillai, AIR 1916 Mad. 290 (2), it was held that poundage is the fee charge by the Court for conducting auction and for costs of stamps purchased by the auction purchaser. The relevant portion of judgment is extracted below : "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." 10. Now that the purpose of poundage is understood, the second question is when this poundage is to be paid by the judgment debtor. The answer to this is in the Civil Rules of Practice i.e., Rule 281 which is corresponding to old Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice. 11. This Court in Sannidhanam Lakshmi Kantayya v. Ghatam Suryanarayana, 1962 SCC Online AP 17, speaking through Justice Chandra Reddy, after considering the Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice, as it existed at that point of time, held that the question of payment of poundage would come after the sale is set aside under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC and not before. Paragraph 6 thereof is extracted below : "6. In our opinion, there can be little doubt on the language of Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC and the relevant rules of the Civil Rules of Practice that in order to entitle the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC only two payments have to be made, namely, (i) compensation to the auction-purchaser equivalent to five per cent of the purchase-money and (ii) the decretal amount as indicated in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered for being paid to the decree-holder. We cannot import into this provision of law the payment of poundage which, should only follow the setting aside of the sale as is clear from Rule 203 of the Civil Rules of Practice which postulates that the Court "may make an order for payment by the judgment-debtor of the poundage and other costs and interest, if any, not covered by the proclamation of sale," after the sale is set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC and not before. If that were the legal position, we fail to see how the failure to deposit the full poundage which here we are told, comes to Rs.32-19 n.p., would result in the dismissal of the application to set aside the sale." 12. This judgment is followed by Madras High Court as well as Allahabad High Court in Manicka Gramani v. V. Venkateswara Iye and others, AIR 1981 Mad. 125 and Ganga Saran (D) through LRs. v. IV A.D.J., Bulandshahr and others, 2004 SCC Online All. 751. 13. A similar issue fell for consideration in Bharat Chandra Bera v. Rajendra Nath Ghose and another, AIR 1961 Cal. 155 and the Calcutta High Court after considering Rule 246 of the Civil Rules of Practice of Calcutta High Court which is similar to Rule 203 of our Civil Rules of Practice held that deposit of poundage is only a condition precedent for consideration of application under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. and that the poundage could be deposited even after 30 days. The Paragraph 16 thereof is extracted below which lucidly explains the effect of non-payment of poundage within 30 days. "16. The effect of this sub-rule is not that the judgment-debtor should deposit the poundage fee within the period of limitation within which he is to make the deposit required by Order 21 Rule 89 but that the Court may require the judgment-debtor to deposit the poundage fee as a condition precedent to the consideration of his application. Suppose a judgment-debtor presents the application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89 after making deposits required by that rule; it is open to the Court to say that it will refuse to consider that application on the merits or to grant the prayer made by the judgment-debtor unless the judgment-debtor deposits the poundage fee. Suppose a judgment-debtor presents the application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89 after making deposits required by that rule; it is open to the Court to say that it will refuse to consider that application on the merits or to grant the prayer made by the judgment-debtor unless the judgment-debtor deposits the poundage fee. That deposit may, however, be made either within the period of 30 days or beyond that period and the only penalty for not depositing the poundage fee is that the judgment-debtor's application for setting aside the sale will not be taken up for consideration by that Court. Rule 246 of the Civil Rules and Orders was not framed by the Rule Committee of this Court as constituted under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it cannot, therefore, have the effect of altering or adding to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89. The only effect of that rule is that the Court may compel a judgment-debtor to deposit the poundage fee on pain of his application for setting aside the sale not being considered before the deposit is made." 14. The judgments of our High Court referred above were rendered in the context of the erstwhile Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice. The Civil Rules of Practice, however, were amended in the year 1980 in exercise of powers confirmed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice was substituted by Rule 281 of Civil Rules of Practice, which reads as under : 281. Refund of Poundage.-(1) If the sale is set aside under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code, the Court may make an order for payment by the judgment-debtor of applicant at whose instance the sale is set aside, of the poundage, costs and interest, if any, not covered by the proclamation of sale. The amount deducted as poundage from the deposit made by the purchaser shall be refunded to him. The amount deducted as poundage from the deposit made by the purchaser shall be refunded to him. (2) If the sale is set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code, the Court shall determine whether any and what party is responsible therefore and may order such party to pay the costs and expenses of the sale, the may make an order any other party entitled to have the property sold may have the property sold may have the conduct of the sale and may make an order for the re-sale of the property. (3) If the sale is set aside under Order XXI Rule 91 of the Code, the Court may make an order for payment by the execution creditor of the poundage and other costs of the sale. 15. The erstwhile Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice is verbatim similar to Rule 281 of Civil Rules of Practice. In this case, the decree holder has filed a full satisfaction memo and once a full satisfaction memo is filed within the time prescribed for seeking to set aside the sale, the question of poundage would come only after the Trial Court sets the sale aside. 16. Apart from that the Courts failed to see that an auction is conducted for realization of decretal amount and when the plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo, there is no decree to be satisfied for confirming the sale. 17. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court are set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. The petitioner shall pay the 5% poundage with interest @ 18% till date within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. On such payment, the auction sale in favour of respondent No.2 shall be set-aside by the Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.