1. This revision petition is filed by the second defendant in O.S.No.72 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property among herself and the defendants 1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3028 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to direct the second defendant to give blood by making himself available for DNA test. The lower court allowed the said application directing the second defendant to give his blood by making himself available for DNA Test at the center for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics (CDFD) at Nacharam, Hyderabad on 28.10.2004 at 10.30 AM and the petitioner is directed to bear the expenses for the said DNA Test as fixed by the Lab authorities either by depositing the said amount into court or by sending the same by way of demand draft. The revision petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the court, preferred the present revision petition challenging its validity and legality.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the lower court passed the impugned order in a casual manner without assigning sufficient reasons in ordering DNA Test against the revision petitioner, therefore, he requested to set aside the order passed by the lower court.

4. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the lower court is sustainable or liable to be set aside?

5. The plaintiff has contended that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by her mother Varalakshmi after leaving her husband in their village and settling at Vijayawada by investing the money acquired out of her own assertions. The plaintiff is claiming that herself and the defendants were born to Varalakshmi the owner of the suit schedule properties. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the second defendant was born to Varalakshmi through Kanakaiah and the said Kanakaiah died in the year 1964, and it is also stated that the plaintiff and the first defendant were born to Varalakshmi.

6. The contention of the second defendant is that since long time ie., prior to the birth of the plaintiff and the first defendant, there was estrangement of relationship between Varalakshmi and Kanakaiah and Kanakaiah died in the year 1964. Therefore, there was no possibility for the plaintiff and the first defendant, to born to Varalakshmi through Kanakaiah. The second defendant further contended that Varalakshmi brought up the plaintiff and the first defendant who were destitute children. Therefore, they were not born to Varalakshmi, and, they are not entitled for any share in the plaint schedule properties, which were acquired by Varalakshmi.

7. In the light of the above contentions raised by the second defendant, the plaintiff filed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to direct the second defendant to undergo DNA Test along with the plaintiff and the first defendant to establish whether all of them were born to Varalakshmi. When it is the specific contention of the second defendant that the plaintiff and the first defendant were not born to Varalakshmi and when it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that herself and the first defendant were also born to Varalakshmi and when they are claiming shares in the properties of Varalakshmi, the lower court felt that it is a fit case where the DNA Test would set at rest the conflict of contentions regarding the maternity of the parties to the suit.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the DNA Test cannot be ordered in a casual way and this is not a fit case for ordering DNA Test. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in BANARSI DASS v TEEKU DUTTA AND ANOTHER held as follows:

"The main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection