( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 27-6-2005 passed by the learned iii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, in I. A. No. 680 of 2003 in I. A. No. 462 of 2003 in O. S. No. 169 of 2003.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit filed by the second respondent herein. The first respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were originally arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed for perpetual injunction. In the concomitant petition filed in i. A. No. 462 of 2003 the plaintiff sought for temporary injunction against the defendants. While things stood thus, the first defendant filed a petition in I. A. No. 680 of 2003 under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for brevity "the Act") requesting the Court to direct the second defendant along with him to subject themselves to DNA Test at c. C. M. B. , Taranaka, Hyderabad. That application having been allowed under the impugned order, it is now being assailed by the second defendant in the suit.

( 4 ) FOR brevity and better understanding of the controversy, certain facts need be noticed. The plaintiff filed the suit, as aforesaid, for perpetual injunction in respect of one acre of land covered by survey No. 54 of Kakaguda village on the ground that he purchased the said property by means of a registered sale deed dated 11-8-1993 from the second defendant and his two sisters - Rafatunnisa begum and Rahmatunnisa Begum; and that the first defendant in the suit claiming himself to be the son of the second defendant started giving trouble to him by threatening and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. That suit is being resisted mainly by the first defendant. The second defendant denied the alleged relationship of the first defendant. The first defendant claiming himself to be the son of the second defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed as guardian and trustee of the first defendant by the second defendant to manage and protect the plaint schedule mentioned property settled upon the first defendant by the second defendant till he attained the age of 21 years, and thus claimed interest over the schedule mentioned property. During the course of enquiry in I. A. No. 462 of 2003, the first defendant filed I. A. No. 680 of 2003 requesting the Court to subject the second defendant to dna Test since he was denying the paternity so that it would clinchingly decide the controversial issue and help the Court in adjudicating the matter effectively. That application was resisted by the second defendant by filing a counter. In that counter, in para 3 inter alia the second defendant admitted the marriage between himself and the mother of the first defendant Mumtaz fatima on 6-11-1980. He pleaded further that there was a divorce in between them on 10-7-1981 and the first defendant having been born subsequent to the divorce on 26-8-1981, therefore, was not born to him.

( 5 ) THE Court below having been of the view that DNA Test will assist the Court in arriving at the truth allowed the petition filed by the first defendant in the suit under the impugned order, as aforesaid.

( 6 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. In view of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination is as to whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to subject themselves to DNA Test?

( 7 ) FROM the matrix of the case, it is obvious that the first defendant claims himself to be the son of the second defendant. While it is the case of the first defendant that the plaint schedule mentioned property was given to him in the settlement whereunder the plaintiff was appointed as trustee and guardian during his minority to manage the property; it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by him under a registered sale deed from the second defendant and the fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document