JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioners are the respondents in O.P. Nos. 661/2016 and 725/2016 before the learned Family Court, Kollam. It is admitted that both the said Original Petitions have been filed by the respondent and are being jointly tried. 2. The petitioners challenge Ext.P11 order which rejected his application, namely I.A. No. 10/2025, to reopen evidence and to summon a particular witness. When one examines Ext.P11, it is rendered evident that the Original Petitions are of the year 2016 and that evidence in it were closed; but re-opened in the year 2024, on the application of the petitioners. They thereupon cited a witness, but who could not be traced out; and the learned Family Court has recorded that, even though the petitioners were directed to assist the Amin to trace him out, it was not done. The Court has, therefore, rejected the interim application, reiterating that the Original Petitions are of the year 2016. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners - Sri. Arun Babu, argued that the impugned order is in error because the witness in question had been served summons earlier prior to the evidence having been closed; but conceded that what the learned Court has recorded is factually true. 4. We have no doubt that the learned Family Court has acted without error because, though the petitioners cite a person as witness, it is admitted - even before us - that he could not be served summons on. We do not see what else the learned Court could have done, but to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to assist the Amin to trace the witness. When the witness remains untraceable, and without being able to be served summons on, the learned Family Court could have done nothing more. 5. This Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed.