IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (FC).No. 861 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.514/2007 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER -------------------- LEJI.S, D/O.LOHITHAN, LAKSHMIVILA VEEDU, NILAKKAMUKKU DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.GAYATHRI R.KRISHNAN SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. HARIKUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN, BINDU BHAVAN, PURAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. 2. OMANA, W/O.GOPINATHAN, DO. DO. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** O.P(F.C) No.861 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner is a party along with the respondent herein in two proceedings before the Family Court, which have been ordered to be tried jointly. The petitioner examined herself as DW1 in the joint trial. Her evidence was closed. Later she filed an application to re-open the evidence and to examine witnesses. The court below by Ext.P6 order turned down the said prayer to re-open the case and to adduce evidence. Reasons are given by the court below in the impugned order. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by Ext.P6 order. He prays that he may be given opportunity to re-open evidence and adduce further evidence. 3. We must be alertly conscious of the nature, quality and contours of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The legislature, in its anxiety to avoid unnecessary protraction of proceedings before the trial courts, has proscribed that even a revision against interlocutory orders will not be maintainable. This does not, of course, place a fetter on the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. O.P(F.C) No.861 of 2010 2 But such jurisdiction has to be alertly invoked only in appropriate cases. Where the Court feels that a stitch in time would save nine, such correctional and supervisory jurisdiction can, of course, be invoked. 4. We do not want to embark on a detailed discussions. Suffice it to say that we are not persuaded to agree that the impugned order Ext.P6 calls for interference by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In coming to this conclusion, we note that the petitioner did have opportunity to adduce evidence, did not avail of that opportunity and admittedly even the chief affidavit of the witness proposed to be examined has not been filed so far. 5. Without intending to place any fetter on the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 order if and when he finds it necessary to challenge the final order in the proceedings, we dismiss this original petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ O.P(F.C) No.861 of 2010 3