JUDGMENT : The present petition has been filed “for setting aside the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by Sub Judge 1st Begusarai in T.S.No 101/16 whereby the petition filed on behalf of Defendants/Petitioners under Section 75 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for a direction to DNA Test of plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 has been rejected.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/respondents have wrongly claimed to be the sons of defendant no.1/petitioner no.1 in the partition suit filed by them. As a matter of fact, they are sons of the first wife of defendant no.1/petitioner no.1, who had married another person namely Rajendra Mahto of Village Maltipipra, Barauni. It is stated that the plaintiffs/respondents merely are the tenants of the defendant nos. 2 and 3/petitioner nos. 2 and 3. As such, defendants/petitioners filed a petition dated 02.07.2018 under Sections 75 and 151 CPC with a prayer to call for a report of DNA test of plaintiff/defendants and defendant no.1/petitioner no.1. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the materials on record. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 discloses that as yet no document had been filed by the defendants/petitioners in order to draw an inference that the plaintiffs/respondents are not the sons of defendant no.1/petitioner no.1. On the other hand, documents had been furnished by the plaintiffs/respondents which prima facie showed them to be the sons of defendant no.1/petitioner no.1. 5. It is well settled that a direction to obtain DNA test cannot be used as a tool to collect evidence on behalf of the parties, as sought to be done herein. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the defendants/petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.