i. Limitation - Law of limitation does apply to void orders.
ii. Estoppel - Once respondent had availed the benefit under the compromise of same date in co-ordinate proceedings, he/she was estopped from challenging the compromise decree.

S.N.Aggarwal, J.

1. Banu Mai alias Banu Ram (in short Banu Mal) was the original owner of the suit land. He had executed a Will in favour of his daughter Jeewani alias Munni Devi (in short Munni Devi) on 14.4.1937 for the suit land. But, subsequently, he had executed a Will on 27.3.1943 in favour of Raghbir Singh, respondent No. 29 (predecessor in interest of the present petitioners) who was his collateral from the third degree. However, the said Will was for the life time of said Raghbir Singh and after his death, the property was to revert back to the legal heirs (respondent Nos. 1 to 6) of Munni Devi daughter of Banu Mal. However, Raghbir Singh got mutation No. 1427 entered in favour of his wife Smt. Kesho Devi, his son Devi Samp (petitioner No. 1) and sons wife Smt. Maya Devi (petitioner No. 2) on 26.2.1954 on the basis of oral Hibbanama (gift) allegedly executed by Babu Mai for the land measuring 835 kanals 7 marlas. The said mutation was sanctioned on 2.3.1954. Said Babu Mal died on 14.11.1954. Respondent Nos.7 to 28 are the subsequent purchasers. Smt. Veena Nirwani, respondent No. 1 (daughter of Munni Devi) filed a civil suit in the year 1989 against Raghbir Singh, his wife Smt. Keso Devi, his son Devi Sarup (petitioner No. 1) and his daughter in law Maya Devi (petitioner No. 2) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction for the suit land and challenged mutation No. 1427 dated 2.3.1954 in favour of Kesho Devi, Devi Sarup and Maya Devi on the basis of alleged Hibbanama. The said suit was decreed and the said mutation was set aside by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.1996. All the subsequent sale deeds executed by these donees were also set aside so also mutation sanctioned on the basis of these sale deeds. The present petitioners, Kusum Lata and Raghbir Singh filed an appeal against the said judgment (C.A. No. 33/254 of 1996) before the District Judge (Annexure P-3). The said appeal was compromised by the petitioners with Veena Nirwani, respondent No. 1 on 25.4.1998. As a result, the appeal was accepted, the petitioners were declared to be the absolute owners of the suit property and the suit of Smt. Veena Nirwani was dismissed as withdrawn. Similar orders were passed in the other connected Civil Appeal Nos. 218 of 1996 and 220 of 1996. Thereafter, Sneh Gupta, respondent No. 5 filed an application (No. 25 of 2002) on 28.2.2002 challenging the compromise decree dated 25.4.1998 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge. It was alleged by her that she was neither a party to the compromise dated 25.4.1998 nor she had given any authority to Veena Nirwani to enter into a compromise on her behalf with the present petitioners nor any notice was given to her or to her counsel for this compromise before accepting the appeal in terms of the compromise on 25.4.1998. Therefore, the said compromise order dated 25.4.1998 was void and not binding on her. She also field similar Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 6.11.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 218 of 1996 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 6.11.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 220 of 1996. The said applications were accepted by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide impugned order dated 29.9.2005, the compromise order dated 25.4.1998 was set aside and the said appeals bearing Nos. 33 of 1996, 218 of 1996 and 220 of 1996 were ordered to be restored to their original numbers which were ordered to be re-decided on merits. Aggrieved by the said order dated 29.9.2005, the present petition (C.R. No. 6473 of 2005) has been filed by the petitioners. Civil Revision No. 6588 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 6589 of 2005 are also directed against the same order dated 29.9.2005. Therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 6473 of 2005.

2. There is a long history of litigation on the back of the prese