The main legal point established in the judgment is that compelling DNA tests in civil litigation requires 'eminent need' and the court must balance the interests of the parties. Parties cannot be compelled to undergo DNA tests as a matter of course, and the burden of proof should be on the litigating party.

JUDGMENT

1. The present respondents as plaintiffs in O.S.No.281/2006, in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickballapur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") had lost their suit for partition and separate possession, which made them to prefer an appeal in R.A.No.16/2014, in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge at Chickballapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the first appellate Court").

2. The present petitioners were the defendants in the suit, as such, they are the respondents in the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the regular appeal, the appellants therein who are the respondents herein filed an application, i.e. I.A.No.1 under Sec. 75(e) Order XXVI, Rule 10A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the CPC") and under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 therein to furnish their blood samples for enabling the DNA testing with appellant No.2.

3. The first appellate Court, by its order dtd. 4/6/2016, while allowing the said I.A.No.1, directed the respondents No.2 and 3 before it to appear before the Court to give their sample blood. In the same order, the Medical Officer from the District Hospital was also directed to be present in the Court with suitable medical instruments to collect the blood sample. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents No.2 and 3 in the first appellate Court have preferred this writ petition.

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) is that, the plaintiffs in the original suit have utterly failed to establish their relationship with the deceased Jayappa, the father of respondents 2 and 3, as such, now they cannot maintain the present application, compelling the respondents No.2 and 3 to give the sample of their blood. In his support, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon two decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumappa Vs.Yallakka and others reported in 2014 (4) AKR 402 and Rajanaika Vs. Umesh and another reported in 2016 (2) AKR 805.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents herein (plaintiffs) in his argument submitted that, the plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of late Sri. Jayappa and plaintiff No.2 is born to plaintiff No.1 through the said deceased Sri. Jayappa. Though the plaintiffs have placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased late Sri. Jayappa, however, since the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective, the plaintiffs, as appellants in the regular appeal were compelled to file the application under consideration, as such, their application came to be filed and allowed by the first appellate Court, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

6. In Hanumappa's case (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in relation to compelling the parties to undergo a DNA test in a civil litigation, was pleased to refer to several decided cases and in para-6 of its judgment, was pleased to observe as follows:

"6. In the light of the above decisions of the apex court, it may be said that the following legal position emerges:

a) That parties to a civil suit cannot be subjected to DNA Analysis as a matter of course,

b) Whenever applications are made with a prayer for such a test or analysis, by way of a roving enquiry the same should not be entertained; It is for the parties to place evidence in support of their respective claims and it is only in deserving cases that such a measure can be resorted to;

c) In cases where the father denies paternity, he must establish a strong prima facie case of "non access" in order to dispel the presumption arising under Sec. 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The burden of proof in that regard should be higher than the standard o