Hariprasad,J:
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in M.P.No.350 of 2014 in M.C.No.560 of 2011 pending before it .
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused Ext.P3 petition and Ext.P8 impugned order.
3. It is seen from Ext.P3 petition that the petitioner approached the court below with a request to reopen the evidence for enabling him to examine additional witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after completion of the oral evidence, the matter has been posted for hearing and at that time, O.P(FC) No. 299 of 2014 :-2-:
Ext.P3 petition was filed. As per Ext.P8 impugned order, the court below dismissed the petition with the following observation:-
“No purpose is stated in this petition. Hence this petition is dismissed.”
On an anxious consideration, we are of the view that no illegality can be seen in the impugned order as Ext.P3 petition is completely bereft of any reason for calling the witnesses cited. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests permission for filing a fresh petition before the family court showing the details. It is also submitted that with a liberty to file fresh petition, the matter may be disposed of.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the Original Petition (FC) with a direction to the Family Court that if the petitioner files a proper petition in 2 weeks from today for calling the witnesses, the court shall O.P(FC) No. 299 of 2014 :-3-:
consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, MBS/ Judge.
//True copy// P.S. to Judge