Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ADIMALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Appellant
Versus
BABU GEORGE – Respondent
RP NO. 205 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.45767 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR, GP
The Court determined that a review petition was unnecessary and directed the party to seek relief through the ongoing writ petition.
Headnote:The review petition seeks to challenge an interim order issued in WP
(C) No.45767 of 2025. The Court found that the proper course for the review petitioner would be to file an application within the ongoing writ petition rather than seeking a review, thereby closing the review petition. The Court directed the first respondent to allot a provisional number to the petitioner's building, subject to the writ petition's outcome. The interim order had provided for notice to both respondents and permitted urgency if required.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition filed against interim order. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner advised to seek remedy in pending writ petition. (Para 2) |
| 3. court closed the review petition. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
The above review petition is filed to review an interim order dated 08.01.2026 in WP(C) No.45767/2025. The interim order passed by this Court on 08.01.2026 is extracted hereunder:
“Admit.
The Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent. Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 2nd respondent.
The 1st respondent is directed to allot a provisional number to the building of the petitioner, regularized as per Ext.P5, subject to the result of this writ petition.
Post along with WP(C) No.18002/2025.
bring up the matter if there is nay urgency.”
2. In the interim order itself, it is stated that matter if there is any urgency. Instead of filing a petition to vacate the interim order, the review petitioner is filing a review petition before this Court to review the interim order.
3. I am of the considered opinion that this review petition need not be entertained. The review petitioner can file appropriate application in the pending writ petition, which is to be heard by the same Bench.
Therefore, granting liberty to the review petitioner to file appropriate application in the pending writ petition, this Review Petition is closed.
Sd/-
