A.Hariprasad, J.
Petitioner is the respondent in a petition for divorce pending at present before the Family Court, Pala. Respondent is the petitioner therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as petitioner and respondent for the sake of convenience. The said petition was originally filed before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. When the matter was pending before the latter court, the petition was dismissed for default. Later, it was restored on the request of the respondent. Subsequently, the Family court, Pala was established and the case was transferred to that court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the records. Considering the nature of request made and the issues involved, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of without notice to the respondent as we have convinced that no right of the respondent will be adversely affected by the order that we propose to pass hereunder.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that when the respondent was cross-examined, the petitioner could not be present to instruct his lawyer.
OP(FC) No.282/2014 2 However, his counsel cross-examined the respondent. On account of the absence of the petitioner, sufficient materials could not be supplied to the counsel for an effective cross-examination of the witness. Therefore, he filed Ext.P3 petition (I.A.No.45 of 2014) before the court below for re- calling the respondent, who was examined as PW1. That application was allowed by the trial court as per Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, the respondent filed Ext.P5 petition to review Ext.P4 order. Petitioner filed an objection to Ext.P5 petition, which is Ext.P6. After hearing both sides, court below as per Ext.P7 order reviewed Ext.P4 order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is posted to 09.06.2014 for the report of the commissioner deputed to examine witnesses. It is the submission of the petitioner that unless the respondent wife is re-called and and allowed him to put relevant questions to discredit her, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of Ext.P7 order, the right and opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine his opponent has been taken away. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the impugned order, we are of the view that the court below should have considered the legal effect of reviewing Ext.P4 order. By virtue of Ext.P7 order, the effect of Ext.P4 order has been wiped out and the petition (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner remains in the file without any adjudication. The reasonable apprehension of the petitioner is that unless a final decision is taken on the prayer to re-call the respondent, OP(FC) No.282/2014 3 who was examined as PW1, he would suffer prejudice. Therefore, before proceeding with the matter, it is proper to finally adjudicate whether the petitioner has established any right to re-call PW1 for further examination. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the court below has to dispose of Ext.P3 petition (I.A.No.45 of 2014) before completion of evidence in the case.
In the result, the original petition is disposed of. Family Court, Pala is directed to consider Ext.P3 petition (I.A.No.45 of 2014 in O.P. (Divorce) No.619 of 2013) filed by the petitioner on merits, after affording an opportunity to the respondent to file a counter, if she has not already filed, and then dispose of the same before starting evidence of the petitioner. Court below shall consider Ext.P3 petition untrammelled by any of the observations contained herein or in Ext.P7 order.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks