Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ
P.J JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
SHEEJA GOPINATH – Respondent
CON.CASE(C) NO. 316 OF 2026 | WA NO.1241 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE, SHRI.DARSHAN A.D
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
Court upholds closure of contempt petition and grants liberty for revival pending review outcome.
Headnote:The court discusses the implications of the stay order in Review Petition No. 1560 of 2025 regarding the judgment dated 12-09-2025 in Writ Appeal No. 1241 of 2025. The facts indicate that the petitioner requests to close the contempt petition while maintaining an option to revive it after the review's outcome. The court expects to revisit the case based on the review petition's result. The central issue revolves around the implementation of the stayed order, leading to the petition's closure with a provision for future revival.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. stay order implications on contempt petition and future revival potential. (Para 1) |
| 2. closure of petition with conditional revival based on review result. (Para 2) |
J U D G M E N T
K.NATARAJAN, J, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the coordinate Bench has already stayed the judgment in Review Petition No. 1560 of 2025 and that the order sought to be implemented is the common judgment passed by this Court on 12-09-2025 in Writ Appeal No. 1241 of
2025 and connected cases.
2. In view of the stay of the judgment by the coordinate Bench, the question of implementing the order at present does not arise.
Therefore, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to close the petition with liberty to revive the same after the result of the Review Petition. The submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, the petition is closed, and liberty is granted to revive this contempt petition after the result of the Review Petition, if the need arises.
Sd/-
