JUDGMENT By the Court.—List revised. 2. No one is present on behalf of Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj and Sri Baldeo Raj. 3. Learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri B.B. Paul is present on behalf of the contesting respondents and we have heard them and perused the record. 4. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4064 of 1982 was filed by Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj in this Court. Petition No. 206 of 1981 and Original Suit No. 2 of 1982 were filed by her husband, Baldeo Raj in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad. Baldeo Raj had also filed Original Suit No. 186 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif (West), Allahabad, Misc. Cases No. 84 of 1982 and 85 of 1982 were filed by Baldeo Raj in respect of alleged violation of the order of the Court passed in Petition No. 206 of 1981. The aforesaid cases mentioned at serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were transferred from the concerned Courts at Allahabad to this Court under orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. We have heard all the aforesaid cases together and now we are deciding them by a common order. 6. The facts relevant for disposal of these cases are that Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj wife of Sri Baldeo Raj was expecting a child and was admitted in Nazreth Hospital, Allahabad. Smt. Alka Sachdeo wife of Sumesh Sachdeo was also expecting a child and was admitted in the same hospital. On 16.11.1981 twins, (two daughters), were born to Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj and a male child was born to Smt. Alka Sachdeo, as per Hospital record. Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj and her husband Sri Baldeo Raj alleged that twin daughters were not born to Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj but one daughter and one son were born to her and a female child was born to Smt. Alka Sachdeo, which was fraudulently exchanged with the son of Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj. She, therefore, filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4064 of 1982 for delivery of corpus of the, aforesaid male child to her. Her husband Baldeo Raj filed Petition No. 206 of 1981 in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act for delivery of that male child to him. (Smt.) Bharti Raj. She, therefore, filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4064 of 1982 for delivery of corpus of the, aforesaid male child to her. Her husband Baldeo Raj filed Petition No. 206 of 1981 in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act for delivery of that male child to him. He also filed another Original Suit No. 2 of 1982 in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad for declaration that he is guardian of that male child. He also filed another application in the Court of the Munsif (West), Allahabad for cancellation of the adoption deed executed by Smt. Alka Sachdeo in favour of Smt. Yashpal in the year 1981 in respect of that child. This application was originally registered as defective Misc. Case No. 401 of 1982, and after removal of the defects, it was registered as Original Suit No. 186 of 1986. 7. Besides the aforesaid cases, Baldeo Raj had also filed Misc. Case No. 18 of 1982 in the district Court (Baldeo Raj v. Sri A.B. Chaturvedi, S.P. City, Allahabad) for drawing contempt proceedings against Sri Chaturvedi for the alleged violation of the order passed in Petition No. 206 of 1981. Sri A.B. Chaturvedi died during pendency of the above case and so the above case stood abated vide order dated 4.2.1987. The general index and order sheet of Petition No. 206 of 1981 were lost when the case was pending, in the district Court and Enquiry No. 5 of 1984 was instituted for fixing liability for loss of the aforesaid two documents. After conducting enquiry, delinquent official was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments and adverse entry was also made in his character roll regarding misconduct and negligence resulting into the loss of general index and order sheet vide order of the District Judge dated 21.7.1986. 8. The matter of custody of child was taken upto Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 13.7.1988 observed that : “Parties agree that examination of blood of the child and of others for the purpose of comparison be done at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 8. The matter of custody of child was taken upto Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 13.7.1988 observed that : “Parties agree that examination of blood of the child and of others for the purpose of comparison be done at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The Director of the Institute will nominate an appropriate Senior Doctor for such purpose and the result of the examination along with the opinion of Doctor shall be communicated to the Registrar, High Court of Allahabad in a sealed cover without being disclosed to anyone. We clarify that the result of the blood test as already-directed shall be conclusive so far as the petitioner is concerned. He shall not be entitled to lead any further evidence. But so far as the respondents are concerned, they will have an opportunity to lead evidence by way of rebuttal, if so advised.” 9. The Supreme Court further ordered that all the aforesaid civil proceedings are transferred to the Allahabad High Court (where the Habeas Corpus Petition is pending) and this question is to be decided on the basis of blood test report as to who are the real parents of the child. After conducting the blood test, the report had been kept in a sealed cover. We have opened the sealed cover and have also perused the blood test report. This blood test report is dated 4.1.1991 and has been signed by Dr. N.K. Mehra, Associate Professor & Officer-in-Charge, HLA Laboratory, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi. Conclusion of this blood test report runs as under : “Mr. Baldeo Raj and Dr. (Mrs) Bharati Raj are excluded as the real parents of child Neel Goomer. It is most likely that Mr. Sumesh Sachdeo and Mrs. Alka Sachdeo are the real parents of Neel Goomer.” 10. This blood test report kept in sealed cover, which has been opened and perused by us, shall form part of the record of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4064 of 1982. 11. In view of the above, it is held that the male child was born to Smt. Alka Sachdeo who had been given it in adoption to Sri & Smt. Yashpal Rai Goomer. The habeas corpus petition is, dismissed, and petition No. 206 of 1981 and suits No. 2 of 1982 and 186 of 1986 are also dismissed. 12. 11. In view of the above, it is held that the male child was born to Smt. Alka Sachdeo who had been given it in adoption to Sri & Smt. Yashpal Rai Goomer. The habeas corpus petition is, dismissed, and petition No. 206 of 1981 and suits No. 2 of 1982 and 186 of 1986 are also dismissed. 12. In view of the fact that we have dismissed habeas corpus petition as well as the suits, the miscellaneous cases No. 19 of 1982, 84 of 1982 and 85 of 1982 have become infructuous and are also hereby dismissed. 13. This judgment shall form part of record of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4064 of 1982. Copies of this judgment shall be kept on the files of Petition No. 206 of 1981, Original Suits No. 2 of 1982 & 186 of 1986 and Misc. Cases No. 19 of 1982, 84 of 1982 and 85 of 1982 which had been received from the trial Courts and thereafter the same may be sent back to the trial Courts to be consigned to Record Room there. ————