(Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 30.06.2026, rejecting the unnumbered E.A filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC in E.A.No.74 of 2026 in E.P.No.91 of 2020 in O.S.No.222 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore and consequently direct the Trial Court to number the petitioner’s objection petition, conduct enquiry in accordance with Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, 1908, adjudicate the petition on its own merits and in accordance with law.)

1. This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 30.06.2026, rejecting the unnumbered E.A filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, in E.A.No.74 of 2026, in E.P.No.91 of 2020, in O.S.No.222 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, and consequently, direct the Trial Court to number the petitioner’s objection petition and conduct enquiry, in accordance with Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, 1908.

2. I have heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Udhayakumar R, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. An application was filed by the revision petitioner, claiming entitlement to the share of the sale consideration deposited by the 1st respondent, pursuant to the settlement reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said application has been disposed of, at the SR stage. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. It is the contention of Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel that merely because the application filed by the other siblings has been disposed of on merits by separate orders, it will not in any manner impede the petitioner from putting forth her case for entitlement to a share in her sister, Anjali Devi’s share, which still lies in Court deposit and has not been withdrawn. The learned Senior Counsel therefore states that the said application should have been numbered and after hearing the parties, especially Anjali Devi, who herself has been impleaded as one of the respondents in the application, the Court should have passed final orders.

5. Per contra, Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would state that though the entire money was deposited, the share of the petitioner was withdrawn, after filing a full satisfaction memo. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is not open to the petitioner to now seek for enlargement of her share from 1/7 to 1/6 and seeks for a claim in the amount deposited, being the share of Anjali Devi, one of the siblings.

6. Both the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, invited my attention to various orders passed in connected proceedings and also the earlier round of litigation, which went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil).No.1687 of 2017, where a joint memo of compromise was recorded and the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been finally disposed of.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 23.10.2017, has recorded the report of the Mediator, Hon’ble Former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla dated 27.05.2017 and the amount deposited by the 1st respondent was directed to be transferred to the District Judge to disburse the money, on identification.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s original entitlement has been withdrawn and in respect of the said amount, a full satisfaction memo has been filed, which does not in any manner preclude the petitioner from seeking an enlarged share, or an additional share, she is entitled to. Therefore, the mere fact that the full satisfaction memo has been filed, it does not preclude the petitioner from maintaining an application for laying her hands in respect of the share of her sister, Anjali Devi.

9. Admittedly, the report of the Hon’ble Mediator, forms a basis of the final order passed in SLP(Civil).No.1687 of 2017 dated 23.10.2017. Both the petitioner, as well as the contesting 1st respondent are admittedly signatories to the minutes of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Mediator.

10. The parties were conscious of the fact that the said Anjali Devi and her husband emained ex-parte before the Trial Court and also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in such circumstances, liberty was given to the respective counsel to seek for appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as regards their entitlement. When the respondents 12 and 13 therein were not even represented by a counsel, the reference to the respective counsel cannot mean respondents 12 and 13, but only the other parties to the minutes of proceedings before the Mediator who were already represented by their respective counsel. In such view of the matter, I do not find the Trial Court even being competent to adjudicate the present claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore given liberty to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in terms of the liberty granted and recorded by the Hon’ble Mediator in minutes of proceedings dated 27.05.2017, based on which the SLP came to be disposed on 23.07.2017.

11. The 1st respondent, based on an ex-parte decree obtained in O.S.No.222 of 2019, stakes a claim to the amount, which has been deposited towards the share of Anjali Devi. This Court has granted interim stay at the time of admission of the revision petition. In the light of the above, even the 1st respondent is at liberty to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court staking a claim over the amounts lying in deposit.

12. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner, as well as the 1st respondent to seek necessary orders from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as agreed before the Hon’ble Mediator, in the minutes of the proceedings entered into in 2017, which forms the very basis of the final orders in the SLP passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the fact that in the interregnum period, the 1st respondent should not take advantage of the decree in its favour, which is sought to be executed and the amount lying in the Court deposit is sought to be withdrawn, based on the said ex-parte decree, the amount shall not be withdrawn for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and before which time, it is open to the parties to seek such interim orders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as they may be advised. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.