ORDER
Heard Sri.Balaraj A.C., learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming ½ share in the suit property. Defendants 1 to 8 have denied the relationship of plaintiffs. On the ground of such denial plaintiffs have filed application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC for appointment of Forensic Analyst as court commissioner to conduct the scientific investigation of DNA test with any one of the plaintiffs, 2nddefendant and 6thdefendant. Said application has been rejected by trial court on the ground that plaintiffs
7
has to establish relationship and also there is no dispute of parenthood by defendants directly and has held after considering the available evidence on record, issues formulated by it can be effectively adjudicated and as such it has dismissed the application.
3. It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and anr reported in AIR 1993 SC 2295 that courts cannot ask for blood test as a matter of course and where such applications are made for such prayer in order to have a roving enquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained and court must carefully examine as to what would be consequence of ordering for blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and mother as an unchaste woman. It has been held by Apex Court in said Judgment as under:
"26. From the above discussion it emerges:-
(1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;
8
(2) Wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
(4) The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.
(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis."
4. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court as stated herein above and in the instant case there is no dispute by defendants directly assailing the parenthood of plaintiffs, trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by plaintiffs for DNA test. No error has been committed by trial court. Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed. SD/-
JUDGE
SBN
9