Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1506 (RAJ)

Kailash Chandra v. Pyare Lal

2015-08-11

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the dismissal of the application filed under Section 151 CPC, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for getting DNA Test qua the defendant No.1 Pyare Lal and petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for partition, inter alia, with the averments that he is natural born son of defendant No.1 Pyare Lal and Smt. Bhagwani. It is also the case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was about one year old, defendant No.1 Pyare Lal contracted Nata marriage with Smt. Ghisi; where after his mother also went in Nata marriage. The defendant No.1, father of the petitioner disputed the relation with the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed the present application seeking DNA Text qua the defendant-respondent No.1 and himself so as to prove his paternity. 4. The application was opposed by the defendants and the trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the court cannot direct a DNA Test for collecting evidence and, consequently dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. From the record, it appears that when after the issues were framed and the petitioner-plaintiff was required to lead evidence, in the first instance, the present application seeking DNA Test was filed. 8. The fact as to paternity of the petitioner and whether he was son of the defendant No.1 Pyare Lal can be proved by other evidence also, which counsel for the petitioner submits is available on record. However, it is also informed that so far, no witness has been examined in the matter. 9. In the above circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner was apparently premature and the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the DNA Test cannot be ordered for collecting evidence. However, in case, after the evidence is led by the parties and still the petitioner feels the requirement of a DNA Test, the petitioner can file application for the said purpose and based on the circumstances of the case, it will be for the trial court to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 10. However, in case, after the evidence is led by the parties and still the petitioner feels the requirement of a DNA Test, the petitioner can file application for the said purpose and based on the circumstances of the case, it will be for the trial court to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 10. With the above observations, no interference is called for in the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed.