1. Heard Ms. Gaidhani, learned Counsel for the appellant and applicant, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel for respondent No.9B both in Second Appeal as also Civil Revision Application at length. Office remark shows that as per the order dated 16.01.2006 in Second Appeal, the appellant has filed affidavit of service stating therein that respondent No.9-A, among others is served by R.P.A.D. Respondent Nos.9C to 9F being minors are represented by their guardian – Respondent No.9-B. Perusal of the writ issued by this Court shows that respondent No.9E accepted service for himself and on behalf of respondent Nos.9A, 9C and 9D. Thus, respondent Nos.9A to 9F are duly served. At the request of Ms Gaidhani, names of respondent Nos.10 to 20 are deleted from Second Appeal. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

2. Second Appeal No.1208 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik (for short ‘trial Judge’