THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4562 OF 2001 ORDER: The first petitioner filed this revision under Ist Proviso to Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, inter alia, seeking to assail the judgment dated 27.06.2001 in C.M.A.No.53 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 09.11.1999 passed in I.A.No.38 of 1998 in I.P.No.30 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 09.11.1999 in I.A.No.38 of 1998 in I.P.No.30 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittor, filed seeking to set aside the sale held on 06.03.1998 and direct the Official Receiver to conduct fresh sale after giving due and vide publicity to sale. Initially, the first petitioner filed an application to declare him as insolvent and accordingly, filed I.P.No.30 of 1971. Subsequent thereto, the matter was proceeded with and he was declared as insolvent. The property, which has been identified at the instance of the petitioner himself was sought to be sold by the Official Receiver, who was appointed earlier and the sale was conducted. It is this sale, which is now in dispute. The original applicant-petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record as per the order of this Court dated 22.07.2005 in CMP.No.14458 of 2003 assailing the action of conducting of sale by the Official Receiver. In support, the petitioner raised twin points, one in respect of the identity of the property, which has been sold and the valuation of the property sold. The petitioner sought to place reliance on the report of the Commissioner-Ex.C1, which shows that the property consists of three floors whereas the auction notice and other notices show that only two floors have been sold. Even the petitioner has raised specific point in regard to the number of floors in I.A. and also in C.M.A. Both the Courts below did not give specific finding whether there are three or two floors. As long as the property has not been identified for sale, it cannot be said that it is a valid sale. That apart, the petitioner also raised a plea that the valuation report is quite higher side and the property sold is on lesser side. All these are matters, which require examination afresh so as to ascertain the exact market value and whether there are two floors or three floors. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 27.06.2001 and the order dated 09.11.1999 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. It is open for both the parties to adduce fresh evidence, if they are so advised. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 3rd February 2011 RRB