JUDGMENT 1. The present respondents as plaintiffs in O.S.No.281/2006, in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickballapur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") had lost their suit for partition and separate possession, which made them to prefer an appeal in R.A.No.16/2014, in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge at Chickballapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the first appellate Court"). 2. The present petitioners were the defendants in the suit, as such, they are the respondents in the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the regular appeal, the appellants therein who are the respondents herein filed an application, i.e. I.A.No.1 under Sec. 75(e) Order XXVI, Rule 10A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the CPC") and under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 therein to furnish their blood samples for enabling the DNA testing with appellant No.2. 3. The first appellate Court, by its order dtd. 4/6/2016, while allowing the said I.A.No.1, directed the respondents No.2 and 3 before it to appear before the Court to give their sample blood. In the same order, the Medical Officer from the District Hospital was also directed to be present in the Court with suitable medical instruments to collect the blood sample. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents No.2 and 3 in the first appellate Court have preferred this writ petition. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) is that, the plaintiffs in the original suit have utterly failed to establish their relationship with the deceased Jayappa, the father of respondents 2 and 3, as such, now they cannot maintain the present application, compelling the respondents No.2 and 3 to give the sample of their blood. In his support, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon two decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumappa Vs.Yallakka and others reported in 2014 (4) AKR 402 and Rajanaika Vs. Umesh and another reported in 2016 (2) AKR 805. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents herein (plaintiffs) in his argument submitted that, the plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of late Sri. Jayappa and plaintiff No.2 is born to plaintiff No.1 through the said deceased Sri. Jayappa. Umesh and another reported in 2016 (2) AKR 805. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents herein (plaintiffs) in his argument submitted that, the plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of late Sri. Jayappa and plaintiff No.2 is born to plaintiff No.1 through the said deceased Sri. Jayappa. Though the plaintiffs have placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased late Sri. Jayappa, however, since the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective, the plaintiffs, as appellants in the regular appeal were compelled to file the application under consideration, as such, their application came to be filed and allowed by the first appellate Court, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. In Hanumappa's case (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in relation to compelling the parties to undergo a DNA test in a civil litigation, was pleased to refer to several decided cases and in para-6 of its judgment, was pleased to observe as follows: "6. In the light of the above decisions of the apex court, it may be said that the following legal position emerges: a) That parties to a civil suit cannot be subjected to DNA Analysis as a matter of course, b) Whenever applications are made with a prayer for such a test or analysis, by way of a roving enquiry the same should not be entertained; It is for the parties to place evidence in support of their respective claims and it is only in deserving cases that such a measure can be resorted to; c) In cases where the father denies paternity, he must establish a strong prima facie case of "non access" in order to dispel the presumption arising under Sec. 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The burden of proof in that regard should be higher than the standard of preponderance of probabilities - it need not however, be proof beyond reasonable doubt; d) The Court must examine the possible consequence of such a test, especially in cases involving disputed paternity, having the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman; e) A party to a civil case cannot be compelled to subject himself or herself to a test or analysis; f) An order by a court directing a party to submit to a test would not however, be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; g) If on consideration of all aspects, if a court has passed an order against a party to submit himself to medical examination and such party refuses to so submit himself - the court may draw an adverse inference against him." 7. In Rajanaika's case (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this Court, after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in lGoutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and another [ AIR 1993 SC 2295 ], where the Hon'ble Court has laid down certain principles regarding DNA testing, was pleased to observe that, though the issue involved in the matter before it was about the paternity of the child, however, prima facie fact of solemnisation of marriage of parents since has not been proved, the mere statement made by the villagers about the marriage cannot be a sufficient ground to permit a DNA test. Though the facts and circumstances in the above referred two cases varies from the case on hand, however, what emerges from the above judgment is that, an order to undergo DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner unless the facts and circumstances of the case warrants for the same. 8. Our Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 20, was pleased to observe that, for ordering for a DNA test, there must be an "eminent need" in the matter and the discretion of Court in directing DNA test must be exercised after balancing the interests of the parties and whether a DNA test is needed for a just decision in the matter and such direction satisfies the test of "eminent need". It further observed that whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA test can also be answered considering the test of proportionality, as the right to privacy has been declared a fundamental right in India. Further, in the very same judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that, in the circumstances, where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the Court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests like DNA test against the will of the party who is to be subjected to such test. It is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and Court cannot compel the party to prove his case in the manner suggested by the contesting party, subject to drawing of adverse interference in the facts and circumstances so warranting the case. 9. In the instant case, no doubt, it is not the defendants (petitioners herein) who either suggested or compelled the plaintiffs to undergo the DNA test. On the other hand, it is the plaintiffs themselves who have volunteered to undergo DNA test, for which, they have made an application seeking a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 in the first appellate Court to give their sample blood. However, even according to the learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs), sufficient materials, both in the form of oral and documentary evidence have been placed by the plaintiffs in the Trial Court, which themselves were sufficient to decide the paternity of plaintiff No.2 with one Sri. Jayappa, who is said to be the father of the respondents No.2 and 3, in the first appellate Court. According to the said learned counsel, however, the Trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects in their proper perspective. 10. A perusal of the Trial Court judgment would go to show that, the plaintiffs, in support of their plaint, apart from examining the two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2, have also got produced and marked documents as exhibits P-1 to P-25 including the genealogical tree, RTC extracts, certified copy of the Partition Deed, wedding card, photos, Transfer Certificate, ration card, voters ID card etc. Thus, when, according to the plaintiffs, they have placed sufficient materials before the Trial Court to prove their legal heir- ship with one Sri Jayappa and that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in their proper perspective, the endurance of the appellants (plaintiffs) must be to convince the first appellate Court, pointing out the error, if any, committed by the Trial Court in appreciation of the said evidence, but not finding some way of securing or attempting to procure some more evidence in their favour, by compelling the unwilling respondents to give their sample blood for DNA testing. However, the first appellate Court in its impugned order, without finding the existence of "eminent need", has stated that, since the plaintiff No.2 intends to prove that he is the son of late Sri. Jayappa, the respondents No.2 and 3 before it who are sons of the said late Sri. Jayappa may be directed to give their blood sample for DNA testing. With such an observation, it proceeded to allow the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs. Since the said reasoning of the first Appellate Court is not convincing and appears to have been ordered to undergo DNA test in a mechanical manner without searching for any "eminent need" in the case, the said order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dtd. 4/6/2016 passed on I.A.No.1 in R.A.No.16/2014, by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Chickballapur (Annexure A) stands quashed. Consequently, the said I.A.No.1 filed under Sec. 75(e) Order XXVI, Rule 10A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also stands dismissed.