Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SOUMYA C V – Appellant
Versus
K V P SUREKHA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48025 OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(C) is filed seeking reliefs including a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to defer proceedings. The petitioner has already filed a suit with the same prayer without obtaining interim orders. The court determined that such prayers cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SHRI.SANTHOSH A.K, SHRI.MUHASIN K.M
For the Respondents: SHRI.RAGHUL SUDHEESH, SHRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SMT.J.LAKSHMI, SMT.AMBILY T. VENU, SMT.RACHEL MARY JACOB, SMT.ATHULYA VAISHNAVI, SMT.NAVANEETA MANU, SRI K I ABDUL RASHEED, SC
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks writ of mandamus. (Para 1) |
| 2. court denies interim jurisdiction without prior orders. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" (i) To issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 3rd respondent to defer the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 Notice.
(ii) To direct the 3rd respondent to give up all further proceedings till the final disposal of Ext. P7 Original Suit."
[SIC]
2. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit with the same prayer. The petitioner had not obtained any interim order. Now, the petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to obtain an interim order until the suit is disposed of. Such a prayer cannot be entertained.
There is no merit in this Writ Petition and hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
