In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 2-12-2005 in O.S. No. 129 of 2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranebennur allowing LA. No. 14 filed under Order 26, Rule 10-A of the CPC appointing Dr. Syed Husain, Director, Centre for DNA (Finger Printing Diagnosis), ECIL Road, Nacharama, Hyderabad-500 076 as expert Commissioner to conduct the DNA test by obtaining blood samples of plaintiff, defendant 4 and his wife Smt. Geetha Reddy.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 129 of 2003. The parties in this writ petition are referred to their status before the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 129 of 2003 against the defendants to declare that she is the daughter of late Sri Ramakrishna and his wife Smt. Lalitha and for other reliefs. The defendants filed written statement denying the claim of plaintiff and contended that plaintiff is the daughter of one Sri Narayana and his wife Smt. Geetha Reddy. After completion of pleadings the Trial Court framed the issues and when the matter was set down for evidence, the first defendant filed LA. No. 14 under Order 26, Rule 10-A of the CPC for appointment of Court Commissioner for scientific investigation. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order allowing LA. No. 14 and appointed a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation to obtain blood samples of plaintiff, defendant 4 and his wife Smt. Geetha Reddy and to conduct DNA test. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Sri M.B. Naragund, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that against the Will of the plaintiff, no needle can be pierced into her body to draw the blood sample and same amounts to violation of human rights. He further, contends that under the impugned order it is directed to draw the blood sample of Smt. Geetha Reddy who is not a party to the proceedings and as such the same is bad in law. He contends that the document produced by the plaintiff prima facie establishes that she, is the daughter of late Sri Ramakrishna and his wife Smt. Lalitha. In the absence of any ambiguity in the evidence, there is no need to appoint a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(i) Smt. Kamti Devi and Another u Poshi Ram;

(ii) Banarasi Dass u Mrs. Teeku Dutta and Another;

(iii) H.M. Prakash alias Dali v State of Kamataka.

5. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent 5 contends that the only controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Sri Ramakrishna Reddy and his wife Smt. Lalitha or Sri Narayana and his wife Smt. Geetha Reddy. This controversy can be best adjudicated by subjecting the parties to DNA test. He supports the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(i) Banarsi Das case;

(ii) Kamalanantha and Others v State of Tamil Nadu;

(iii) Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai and Others';

(iv) H.M. Prakash's case;

(v) Sharda v Dharmpal'.

6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

7. It is settled position of law that Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in support of a claim. After completion of evidence on both the sides, if it is found that there is any ambiguity in the evidence adduced by the parties, then the Court may appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of clarification of such an ambiguity. In the instant case the evidence is not yet commenced and therefore the question of ambiguity in the evidence will not arise at this stage. The Trial Court without considering the settled position of law committed an error in passing the impugned order appointing a Court Commissioner. On this ground the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

8. Under the impugned order the Trial Court directed DNA test by obtaining blood samples of plaintiff, defendant 4 and his wife, Smt. Geetha Reddy. Admittedly Sm