1. The facts leading up to this petition are stated to be as follows:

Respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed a civil suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties, as against the petitioner, who was arraigned as defendant no. 1 in the said suit, and others. Respondent no.1, who was Plaintiff no.1, claimed that the petitioner was her husband, who had deserted her and the other plaintiffs were her daughters, born to him.

The said suit in O.S. 105/2006, before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Hiriyur, was contested and it was denied that there was any relationship between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the petitioner herein. That contention was upheld and the suit was dismissed.

The respondents no.1 to 3, the plaintiffs, have now filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree, in RA 11/2010, before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hiriyur. In the light of the suit having been dismissed for want of adequate evidence regarding the relationship of the plaintiffs with the first defendant and especially as regards the paternity of plaintiffs no.2 and 3, an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the "CPC", for brevity) was said to have been filed, seeking the appointment of a Commissioner for collection of DNA samples of the concerned namely, the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein, to determine their paternity. That application having been allowed, the petitioner is aggrieved and the present petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below has allowed the above application without regard to the serious and sensitive nature of the proposed investigation, which is a direct violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is contended that the plaintiffs, who are claiming to be the wife and daughters of the petitioner are aged 48, 24 and 22, respectively, and it is hence inexplicable that they were unable to produce any kind of documentary evidence to even remotely establish that the petitioner and the first plaintiff had lived together as husband and wife, over the decades and that the other plaintiffs were born to them. It is therefore unjust and objectionable that the petitioner be subjected to any scientific investigation, against his will and when the respondents 1 to 3 have miserably failed to establish their case. It is contended that it is not a circumstance that though there was some evidence of a possible relationship, since there was some doubt created in the mind of the court, which had prompted it to make the appointment, and seeks that the impugned order be set at naught.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, seeks to justify the impugned order.

4. It is noticed by this court that since recently courts have been routinely directing that parties be subjected to DNA tests and analysis. It is therefore necessary to revisit the topic as understood scientifically and the circumstances under which recourse should be had 10 the said measure, as expressed by the Apex court from time to time, to address whether the impugned order can indeed be justified.

DNA

Nearly all living things are composed of highly organized structures called cells. Every cell is made mostly of liquid protected by a thin membrane. The nucleus is the central part of the cell.

Almost all the cells in an organism carry a complete copy of that organism's Deoxyribose nucleic acid - or DNA, for brevity. Nucleic acids are of two kinds, named according to the type of sugar with which they are associated - those and deoxyribose. In organisms which have a separate cell nucleus, ribose nucleic acid, or RNA, for brevity, is found in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm, the viscous fluid consisting of water and complex molecules surrounding the nucleus, whereas DNA is found only m the nucleus.

Inside the nucleus of the human c