JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions titled above, as both of them pertain to the same property, and the dispute is between the same parties.

2. Before taking up the impugned orders as have been challenged by way of these petitions, it would be apt to mention the status of parties before courts below and also certain brief facts of the case. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court concerned.

3 Narinder Kumar Sood (respondent No.l herein through his legal representatives) was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 590 of 1994 titled 'Narinder vs. Goverdhan'. Goverdhan Dutt (respondent No.2 through his legal representatives herein) was the defendant before the trial Court in this suit. He was the owner of the property in dispute. Smt. Shashi Gupta (petitioner herein through her legal representatives) is the third party objector.

4. The perusal of paper book & trial court record reveals that based upon an agreement to sell dated 07.12.1990, plaintiff Narinder Kumar Sood instituted the above Civil Suit No.590 of 1994 on 08.09.1994 for specific performance regarding suit property against defendant-Goverdhan Dutt. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, Goverdhan Dutt - the defendant of that case, was proceeded ex parte. After trial, the suit was decreed on 13.10.1997. As it turned out, during pendency of the suit, defendant-Goverdhan Dutt had sold the suit property to one Malkiat Kaur vide sale deed dated 13.09.1994 and said Malkiat Kaur further sold the suit property to Smt. Shashi Gupta (petitioner) on 09.11.1994. In order to get the sale deed executed pursuant to the decree dated 13.10.1997 in his favour, Narinder Kumar Sood filed execution, during which sale deed dated 21.08.1998 in his favour was executed by Goverdhan Dutt (Judgment debtor) through the reader of the Court, as appointed by the Court. Warrants of possession were issued in his favour.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Shashi Gupta started availing three different remedies. First of all, she moved a Misc. Application No.4 of 1999 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 13.10.1997. Said application was dismissed on 20.07.1999. Against that order, Shashi Gupta filed Civil Revision No.2285 of 2004, which was initially admitted on 04.05.2004, but ultimately it was disposed of as infructuous on 27.09.2019 on account of the fact that third party objections as filed by the petitioner Shashi Gupta in the execution petition, had already been dismissed.

6. 1 The second remedy availed by the petitioner-Shashi Gupta i.e. third party objector was by filing a separate Civil Suit No.214 of 1999, against Narinder Kumar Sood, Goverdhan Dutt and Malkiat Kaur i.e. her vendee. She challenged the decree dated 13.10.1997 to be null and void and not binding on her rights. In the said suit, she also moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 10.02.2000 and then the appeal filed by her against that order was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 02.02.2002. The main suit No. CS No.214 of 1999 titled 'Shashi Gupta Vs. Narinder Kumar Sood & others' itself was dismissed in default on 26.09.2003.

6. 2 On 13.01.2006, petitioner moved Misc. Application No.2 of 2006 for restoration of the aforesaid Civil Suit No.214 of 1999, which was hotly contested. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. Ultimately, said application for restoration was dismissed on 19.12.2012. Against this order, petitioner initially filed Civil Revision No.753 of 2013 before this High Court but that was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2015 after taking liberty to file appeal. Petitioner then filed appeal against the order dated 19.12.2012, which has been dismissed by the Appellate Court on 22.08.2019.

7. The third remedy availed by the petitioner was in the form of third party objections filed by her agai