IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1584 of 2010() ------------------------------ C.2161/2010 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI .................... PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ KUDUMBI SEVA SANGAM, ER NO.15/65, UDAYATHUMVATHIL, PANANGAD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SRI.SUNIL K.S. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI. 3. AMMINI RAMAN, NADUTHIRIPARAMBU, UDAYATHUMVATHIL, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1584 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred challenging AnnexureI order, which is interlocutory in nature, prohibiting the revision petitioner from conducting any construction work on the land in Survey No.49/13 in Block No.16 of Kumbalam village until further orders, from the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Fort Kochi. 2. It appears that Annexure-I order was issued on the basis of Annexure-II petition, preferred by the 3rd respondent and after enquiry conducted by the Village officer Kumbalam, and on the basis of the report furnished by the Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner raised several contentions, including legal and on factual basis. At this stage, I am not proposed to express any opinion regarding the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, since I am of the view that this court need not entertain the revision petition, as the order under challenge in this revision petition is only an interlocutory order, which will be certainly subject to the final Crl. R.P.No.1584 of 2010 2 order, that will be issued by appropriate authority, therefore the revision petitioner will get an opportunity to raise all these contentions. Hence according to me, this revision petition can be disposed of relegating the revision petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent to have a final order, with liberty to raise all her objection and also for producing necessary materials which she rely in support of her contention. The learned counsel submitted that so far no notice was given to the revision petitioner. In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of relegating the revision petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for which, the 2nd respondent is directed to serve a notice on the revision petitioner, as revision petitioner submitted that she has not received any notice from the 2nd respondent, and dispose of AnnexureII petition after giving an effective opportunity to the revision petitioner as well as the complainant in AnnexureII. The 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. The revision petition disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/