(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)

1. Admit. By consent of Counsel and at their request, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The appeal arises from an order of a Learned Single Judge, dated 23 November 2012 on a motion that was taken out in a Trust Petition. The Appellant and the First Respondent are brothers. The Second Respondent is their mother, while the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents are their sisters. The Trust Petition has been instituted by the First Respondent inter alia for the distribution of the Trust properties in equal proportion between the Appellant and the First Respondent, who are the two beneficiaries named in the Deed of Trust.

3. The Petition came up for hearing before a Learned Single Judge. On 5 August 2005, Mr. Justice S.U. Kamdar dictated, in the presence of the parties and their Counsel, terms of settlement. A Chamber Summons had been moved before the Learned Single Judge by the mother and the three sisters for impleadment. On 5 August 2005, the Learned Single Judge, by consent of parties allowed the impleadment of the three sisters and directed the First Respondent to amend the suit which was to be heard together with the Trust Petition. In order to bring clarity to the controversy in the appeal, it would be necessary for the Court to make a reference to the following facts which have been admitted during the course of the hearing:

(i) The Consent Terms which were dictated by the Learned Single Judge on 5 August 2005 were initialed by the parties at the foot of every page and parties signed the Consent Terms together with their Advocates at the foot thereof;

(ii) On 5 August 2005, the Learned Judge did not sign an order disposing of the Trust Petition in terms of the Consent Terms. In fact, the record of the case was inspected by Counsel and there is no order of the Single Judge disposing of the Trust Petition;

(iii) In contrast to (ii) above, there is an order duly passed and signed on 5 August 2005, allowing impleadment of the sisters;

(iv) The original Consent Terms dictated by the Single Judge contain a large number of hand written corrections and include riders;

(v) After the Consent Terms had been initialed by the parties and by their Advocates, a fresh typed copy was placed on the record. The fresh copy was, however, not signed by the First Respondent or his Advocate.

4. On 8 March 2006, on a motion for recalling, the Learned Trial Judge was moved for stay of 'the order' dated 5 August 2005. The Learned Judge declined to grant an ad-interim stay on the ground that on 5 August 2005, a consent order had been passed. On 7 April 2006, the Learned Judge directed each of the Counsel who had appeared in the matter to file their affidavits about what transpired in Court on 5 August 2005 and on the previous date, namely, 3 August 2005. On 21 April 2006, the Learned Judge held that the First Respondent "has signed the said consent order as consent order between the parties" and issued a notice to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act. The orders dated 8 March 2006, 7 April 2006 and 21 April 2006 were passed by the Learned Judge in a motion which was taken out by the First Respondent for recalling the order dated 5 August 2005. The motion proceeded on the footing that there was an order of the Court dated 5 August 2005. The motion was dismissed by Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. on 23 January 2007 against which the First Respondent filed an appeal. In the meantime, S.U.Kamdar, J. demitted office.

5. The appeal was disposed of on 21 November 2011 by the Division Bench with the following order which was passed by consent of parties:

"At the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Second Respondent and Counsel appearing on behalf of the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents have agreed that the following order may be passed with the consent of all the Learned Counsel and the