Functus officio, a branch of the doctrine of Res judicata prevents the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or other statutory actor which rendered the final decision in the absence of statutory authority. There are many exceptions. For instance, where a statute authorizes variations of the original decision, the decision maker may revisit his or her previous decision. Common examples include competency hearings, parole board hearings and family law proceedings.
The person who had spoken the word Functus officio on this particular thread he has presented an ambiguity of nothing. Here no where Functus officio is disussed. The quesrist is very much eligible to file a writ of certiorari as from starting the querist is announcing that he has been deprived of natural justice,as Judge has given the order without noticing his income and expenditures and liabilities. Again without listening to the respondent he changed his own previous order without following the process of natural justice.
The principal of natural justice and it's meaning and principle.
Principle of natural justice is based on the two legal maxims "Nemo debet essa judex in propria cause" which means no one can be judge of his own cause, Audi Alteram Partem" which means opportunity of fair hearing to the other side must be afforded.
This is a rule which generally applies in disciplinary proceedings against an employee charge of misconduct or any guilt. As per the rule of principle of natural justice, an enquiry into the allegation labeled against the employee must be initiated and a fair opportunity of bearing heard must be afforded to such employee. Thus this rule requires that.
(1) charged employee should be given notice of the charges he is called upon to explain and the allegations on which those are based;
(2) evidence should be taken in the presence of the charged employee;
(3) he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses;
(4) he should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies;
(5) no material should be relied on against him without giving him an opportunity of explaining such material.
It is very clear that he has not been given any chance to put forward his own counter and without considering his plea the judge has followed the one sided decision.
Petition for certiorari,
A party, the petitioner, files a petition for certiorari with the appellate court after a judgment has been rendered against him in the inferior court. The petition must specifically state why the relief sought is unavailable in any other court or through any other appellate process, along with information clearly identifying the case and the questions to be reviewed, the relevant provisions of law to be applied, a concise statement of facts relating to the issues, and any other materials required by statute. The rules of practice of the appellate court to which the petitioner has applied for relief govern the procedure to be observed. For example, a petition for statutory certiorari made to the HC or SC via U/A 226 & U/A 32 must be prefaced by a motion for leave, or permission, to file such a petition. If a common-law writ is sought, however, the petitioner need only file a petition for certiorari.
After evaluating the petition, the appellate court will decide whether to grant or deny certiorari. Certiorari is issued, designated as "cert. granted," when the case presents an issue that is appropriate for resolution by the court and it is in the public interest to do so, such as when the issue has been decided differently by a variety of lower courts, thereby creating confusion and necessitating a uniform interpretation of the law. Certiorari is denied when the appellate court decides that the case does not present an appropriate matter for its consideration. In the practice of the Supreme Court, if a petition has been granted certiorari as a result of a mistake, such as where the petitioner misrepresents the case or the case has become moot, the Court will dismiss the petition as "having been improvidently granted," which has the same effect as an initial denial of the petition.
. In case the applicant/Respondent is unhappy with the order of the lower court she/he can file an appeal U/s 29 of the DV act in the session court and get a stay on the proceedings of the lower court. 
