ORDER: Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.370 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2022 by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor, whereunder the petition filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 herein filed the suit in O.S.No.43 of 2022 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled lands claiming that he is the son of the revision petitioner/defendant No.1, without specifying the name of the mother, claiming right over the suit schedule lands. The revision petitioner and respondent No.2 are the brothers and they are sons of Late Bhadraiah and that their mother is Anasuya. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No.2 partitioned the lands and separate passbooks were also issued to them. The said fact was also narrated by the respondent No.1 in his plaint. The respondent No.1 also averred that the land held by the petitioner was sold to respondent No.5 through registered Doc.No.517 of 2021 before the Registering Authority, Anumula. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner further submits that the respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 2022 claiming right over the properties illegally. The Court below without considering the plea of the petitioner no land is available for partition and even the said fact was also admitted by the respondent No.1 in his plaint that the entire land belongs to the petitioner was alienated in favour of the respondent No.5, but, allowed the Interlocutory Application directing the petitioner to present before the FSL to give Blood sample for DNA Test. The claim of the respondent No.1 in the suit for partition and separate possession is not possible when the land itself is not available for partition and the order passed by the Trial Court is against the principles of natural justice and the petition filed by the respondent No.1 for DNA Test is only to degrade the prestige of the petitioner and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following Judgment: Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others, (2022) 1 SCC 20 6. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following Judgment: Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others, (2022) 1 SCC 20 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 basing on the counter submits that the Revision Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are jointly enjoying the property. Due to increase of the land rates, Revision Petitioner along with other respondent Nos.2 to 4 sold the lands to the respondent No.5 without any consent of the respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 issued legal notice to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 29.10.2021 for which a reply notice was given on 01.11.2021 with baseless allegations. As such the respondent No.1 constrained to file suit for partition in O.S.No.43 of 2021 and the same is pending. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that the Revision Petitioner, who is the father of the respondent No.1, had not only denied the share of the respondent No.1 but also denied the respondent No.1 as his son intentionally in order to take away the share of property of the respondent No.1. As such, the respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.370 of 2022 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to undergo DNA Test and the same was allowed, but the Revision Petitioner instead of undergoing test, had approached this Court in order to get away from DNA Test and there are no valid grounds in the revision petition and requested to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 8. After hearing both sides, and on perusing the record, it discloses that the respondent No.1 herein filed the suit in O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file Junior Civil Judge, Nidmanoor, seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled lands claiming that he is the son of the revision petitioner. In the said suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.370 of 2022 to direct the petitioner and respondent No.1 to undergo DNA test at FSL, Hyderabad and the Court below allowed the said petition on 10.04.2023 directing the petitioner herein to present before the FSL at Hyderabad on 26.04.2023 to give Blood sample for DNA Test. 9. The contention of the respondent No.1 is that the Revision Petitioner denied the respondent No.1 as his son intentionally in order to take away the share of property of the respondent No.1. 9. The contention of the respondent No.1 is that the Revision Petitioner denied the respondent No.1 as his son intentionally in order to take away the share of property of the respondent No.1. As such, the respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.370 of 2022 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to undergo DNA Test and the same was allowed, but the Revision Petitioner instead of undergoing test, had approached this Court in order to get away from DNA Test. 10. The issue of directing to undergo for DNA Test is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases and the Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner apply to the instant case. 11. In Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others (Supra-1) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos.11, 18 and 19 held as follows: “11. In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the Court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions. Indian law leans towards legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. The presumption in law of legitimacy of a child cannot be lightly repelled. 18. Having answered these questions, an additional issue to be resolved is whether refusal to undergo DNA testing amounts to “other evidence” or in other words, can an adverse inference be drawn in such situation. In Sharda Vs. Dharmpal a three-Judge Bench in the opinion written by S.B.Sinha, J. rightly observed in Para No.79 that “if despite an order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference” can be made out against the person within the ambit of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff here has adduced his documentary evidence and is disinclined to produce further evidence. He is conscious of the adverse consequences of his refusal but is standing firm in refusing to undergo the DNA Test. His suit eventually will be decided on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced. The issue of drawing adverse inference may also arise based on the refusal. He is conscious of the adverse consequences of his refusal but is standing firm in refusing to undergo the DNA Test. His suit eventually will be decided on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced. The issue of drawing adverse inference may also arise based on the refusal. The Court is to weigh both sides’ evidence with all attendant circumstances and then reach a verdict in the suit and this is not the kind of case where a DNA Test of the plaintiff is without exception. 19. The respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case. In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the Court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party”. 12. In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 SCC Online SC 161 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.59 held as follows: “59. This Court has, while considering questions connected with Section 112 of the Evidence Act, consistently expressed the stand against DNA Tests being ordered on a mere asking. Further, the law does not contemplate use of DNA Tests as exploratory or investigatory experiments for determining paternity”. (emphasis added) 13. In view of the above judgments, it is a settled law that where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the Court should ordinarily refrains from ordering blood tests. The parties cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test in support of the other side evidence and the Court cannot ask for DNA test mere filing of petition without any proper evidence to establish their case and the impugned orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.370 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2022 is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above findings, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Order dated 10.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.370 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nidmanoor and the Court below is directed to dispose of the main suit, within six (6) months from the date of the receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in these petitions, shall also stand closed.