JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matter has come up on an application for vacation of the interim order, however, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of, instead of dealing with the application Article 226(3) of the Constitution. 2. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have oppugned the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh whereby the application dated 17.09.2016 filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking conducting of DNA Test, has been allowed. The necessary facts for the decision of the present writ petition are as follows. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for cancellation of four sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 Dalip Singh, inter alia, claiming that the plaintiff No.1 is son of defendant No.1 whereas the plaintiff No.2 is his legally wedded wife. It was contended that the land, which has been sold by way of subject sale deeds dated 21.03.2011, was ancestral/HUF property of Dalip Singh and as such, Dalip Singh had no authority and right to transfer the land, ignoring the rights of the plaintiffs in the undivided property of the coparcenary property. 4. In response to said suit, petitioner-defendants filed written statement, disputing the plaintiffs’ version of marriage of Dalip Singh with the plaintiff No.2 Parvati and refuting the allegation of Ramesh (plaintiff No.1) being son of Dalip Singh. It was also, inter alia, contended that the land in question belonged to Mai Lal (father of defendant No.1 Dalip Singh), who died in 1995 and hence, in light of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the defendant No.1, being Class-I heir, is the lawful owner of the property and further that the plaintiffs can not claim any right in the disputed land. 5. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the trial court: fook|d 1- vk;k oknh la[;k 1 jes'k izfroknh la[;k 1 nyhi flag dk iq= rFkk oknhuh la[;k 1 ikoZrh izfroknh la[;k 1 nyhi flag dh oS| iRuh gS\ 2- vk;k oknxr d`f"k Hkwfe oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k dh iq'rSuh & iSr`d o vfoHkkftr rFkk la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh lg~nkf;dh lEifr gS ,oa oknhx.k izR;sd dk blesa 1@5 fgLlk gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk izfroknh la[;k 2 ds i{k esa mDr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa fu"ikfnr 4 foØ;&i= fcuk fdlh ikfjokfjd vko';drk ds fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s gS rFkk izfroknh la[;k 1 dks cgyk Qqlykdj fcuk dksbZ izfrQy vnk fd;s] uqekba'kh rkSj ij mDr foØ;&i= fu"ikfnr djok;s x;s gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 2 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr oknxr pkjksa foØ;&i= oknhx.k ds gd vf/kdkjksa ds izfr 'kwU;] izHkkoghu ,oa csvlj gS\ 5- vk;k oknhx.k dCts o vUrj.k ds lEcU/k esa fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 6- vk;k oknhx.k dks okn vk/kkj izkIr ugha gS\ 7- vk;k okn viw.kZ U;k;ky; 'kqYd ij is'k fd;k x;k gS\ 8- vk;k okn jktLo U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gh gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; esa pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 9- vk;k izfroknh cSad ls oknxr d`f"k Hkwfe jgueqDr djok;s fcuk oknhx.k vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 10- vuqrks"k\ Li"V fd, x, lgh@& ¼';ke lqUnj ykVk½ vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k Hkknjk ftyk & guqekux<A 6. After leading evidence by both the parties, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 17.09.2016 under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC and requested the court to conduct DNA Test, as the defendants have denied the assertion of the plaintiff that Parvati is wife while Ramesh (the plaintiff No.1) is a son of defendant No.1 Dalip Singh. It was indicated in the application that for the purpose of doing complete justice, DNA Test is necessary in the facts of the case. 7. In response to said application, the defendants No.1 and 2 filed a reply dated 21.10.2016 contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have led their evidence and by way of the application under consideration, they could not be given additional chance to produce rather create evidence in their favour. 8. The said application dated 17.09.2016 seeking DNA Test came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 23.11.2016. 8. The said application dated 17.09.2016 seeking DNA Test came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 23.11.2016. Mr Nitin Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the order dated 19.12.2016 contended that the learned court below has seriously erred in allowing the application of the plaintiffs seeking DNA Test, more particularly as the application under consideration came to be filed at the fag end of the proceedings. 9. He further contended that even if the DNA Test is conducted and its result/report is brought on record as claimed, plaintiffs No.1 Ramesh and No.2 Parvati can not get anything and their suit can not be decreed. He urged that the plaintiffs have no right of inheritance in the property, in view of the provisions of sections 6 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He argued that since a bare reading of the provisions of the Act of 1956 reveals that the plaintiffs being heir of Class-II, can not get anything, the court should not have ordered for DNA Test. According to him, conducting of the Test would unnecessarily intrude in the privacy, not only of the petitioner-defendant No.1, but also of the plaintiffs. 10. Mr Trivedi placed reliance upon judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 493- Kuldeep Singh v. Joginder Kaur & another to drive home the point that the DNA Test should not be ordered to be conducted as a matter of course. Equating the facts of the present case with the facts of the case before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, he submitted that in the present case also, the burden to prove the factum of marriage and so also the paternity of Dalip Singh qua plaintiff No.1, should have been left to be proved by the plaintiffs, by way of leading evidence. 11. Mr. Nitin Trivedi, further contended that the court below while allowing the application, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of AIR 1999 SC 495 , which was not at all applicable as the facts in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court were entirely different from the facts involved in the present case. 12. Mr. Nitin Trivedi, further contended that the court below while allowing the application, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of AIR 1999 SC 495 , which was not at all applicable as the facts in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court were entirely different from the facts involved in the present case. 12. Per contra, Mr R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents, strived to defend the order impugned, with the help of the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that the court can call for any scientific investigation, if it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2012) 12 SCC 554 rendered in case of Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar to buttress his submission that the court can order for scientific investigation or DNA Test on the basis of assertion and allegation of the parties. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. To understand the true import and purport of the provisions contained in Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code, it would be apt to keep the same handy and hence, the same is reproduced here under: “ORDER XXVI : Commissions 10A. Commission for scientific investigation.-(1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the court, be conveniently conducted before the court, the court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the court. (2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.” 15. A bare reading of the provisions of Order XXVI rule 10A of the Code reveals that the court can issue commission for scientific investigation, if a question arising in the suit involves any scientific investigation. A bare reading of the provisions of Order XXVI rule 10A of the Code reveals that the court can issue commission for scientific investigation, if a question arising in the suit involves any scientific investigation. The said provision of the Code of Civil Procedure further provides that if in the opinion of the court, such investigation can not be conveniently concluded before the court, it may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit. 16. A careful reading of this provision reveals that it has been incorporated with a view to issue commission to a person to carry out a scientific investigation, if such investigation is not practicable before it. As such, in an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A, the Court is required to see as to whether such investigation can be conducted in the Court or not, inasmuch as the entire emphasis of this Rule is on the issuing a commission and not on the question as to whether the question to be answered involves scientific investigation. 17. A careful reading and interpretation of the provision leaves no room for ambiguity that the provision is meant for the assistance of the court and for the purpose of deciding any question arising in the suit, which involves scientific investigation. As such, the court, in its discretion, can issue a commission at any stage of the proceedings. The argument of Mr Trivedi that the application under consideration has been filed at the fag end of the proceedings, merits rejection. 18. Secondly, in the light of the issues framed by the court, particularly issue No.1, it is not only imperative rather essential for the court to have a scientific investigation done. DNA Test is not only a scientific but more conclusive Test or method to determine the core question involved in the present case. 19. If the factum or presumption of paternity is disputed by some one, more particularly by the alleged father, it is difficult nay impossible for the party alleging such paternity to prove it without any scientific investigation. Needless to say that it is a tumultuous task to prove such fact and equally intricate question for the court to answer. But for a scientific investigation, such as DNA Test, it would be disturbing and dejecting terrain to embark upon or enter into. 20. Needless to say that it is a tumultuous task to prove such fact and equally intricate question for the court to answer. But for a scientific investigation, such as DNA Test, it would be disturbing and dejecting terrain to embark upon or enter into. 20. In my view DNA Test would avoid unnecessary harassment and embarrassment to the persons involved and would be more expedient in the facts of the present case. The DNA Test will bring more certainty and quietus to the issue and result in quick disposal of the case. 21. Mr Trivedi has strenuously submitted that even if it is presumed that plaintiff No.1 is son and plaintiff No.2 is the wife of the defendant No.1, Dalip Singh; the plaintiffs will not get anything. He contended that qua the property of Mailal, Dalip Singh being a heir of Class-I would succeed, to the exclusion of heirs of Class-II. Apparently, this argument appears to be attractive, but such approach can not be a determining factor, while deciding the application under consideration. It is not in dispute that the court had framed issue No.1, in the manner stated above, as such, the evidence of the parties are required to be led vis-a-vis the issues framed and court has to examine the evidence and call for the opinion on scientific investigation in accordance with the issues. In considered opinion of this Court, without any challenge to the framing of issue No.1, the court is supposed to decide the issue No.1 as framed. None of the issues can be left undecided as suggested by petitioners. 22. In this view of the matter, even if for a moment the argument of Mr Trivedi is accepted that the plaintiffs will not get anything out of the property sold, still the court is required to pronounce upon the issue framed by it. 23. As such, for the purpose of determining the question involved in issue No.1, the trial court has rightly ordered for DNA Test by way of the order impugned. 24. Though the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of Code does not require recording of satisfaction, still the court below has applied its mind on the factual matrix of the case and has recorded a reason that but for DNA Test, issue of paternity or fatherhood can not be decided. 25. 24. Though the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of Code does not require recording of satisfaction, still the court below has applied its mind on the factual matrix of the case and has recorded a reason that but for DNA Test, issue of paternity or fatherhood can not be decided. 25. In light of the above discussion, the order dated 23.11.2016 deserves to be approved and hence affirmed. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed, however, without any cost.