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’) below applications at Exhibits 396 and 404 in Insolvency Application No.12 of 1959 as also the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2004 passed by the learned II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik (for short ‘District Judge’) in Civil Appeal No.131 of 2000.

3. By these orders, the Courts below rejected the applications at Exhibits-396 and 404 made by the auction purchaser. Application at Exhibit-396 was made by him for (i) permitting him to prepare and file the draft of the final sale deed for the purchase of the land bearing Survey No.9/1-A admeasuring 2 Acres 10 Gunthas situate at Nashik (for short ‘suit land’); (ii) permitting him to deposit in Court the requisite stamp duty, registration charges among other charges; (iii) ordering lodging of the final sale deed with the Sub-Registrar, Nashik for execution and registration through the Receiver or through any other officer, superintendent or assistant superintendent of the Court; (iv) ordering the Sub-Registrar, Nashik to register the instrument and (v) delivering the possession of the suit land in accordance with the auction sale by issuing warrant of possession with clear and specific orders by removing all obstructions / obstacles and / or objections of the occupants or third person or persons along with adequate police and including ladies constables after execution and registration of the final sale deed. The auction purchaser made application at Exhibit-404 for confirming the auction sale and for executing the sale deed in his favour.

4. The auction purchaser has also instituted Civil Revision Application No.90 of 2005 challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2000 passed by the learned trial Judge below Exhibits 1 and 378 in Insolvency Application No.12 of 1959 as also the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2004 passed by the learned District Judge. By these orders, the Courts below allowed the application Exhibit-378 made by respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short ‘Insolvency Act’) for annulling the adjudication of their predecessor-in-title by name Roopsingh Chainsingh Ture as an insolvent. In view of the order below application Exhibit- 378, the learned trial Judge passed order on 28.01.2000 below Exhibit-1 thereby dismissing Insolvency Application No.12 of 1959. Mr. Ture shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘insolvent’. Respondent No.9 – Vitthal Bhikaji Gaikwad, since deceased, was claiming to be the tenant in respect of the suit land under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘Tenancy Act’). Respondent Nos.9A to 9F are the heirs and legal representatives of Vitthal Bhikaji Gaikwad and they shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the ‘tenant’.

5. Second Appeal No.1208 of 20