1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Advocates for the respective sides finally.

2. Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 20/06/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij, Dist. Beed in RCS No.186/2002, which has been filed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No.7, for partition and separate possession. They are original plaintiffs in RCS No.186/2002.

3. Contention of the petitioners is that an application at Exh.55 was filed before the learned Civil Judge, J.D. at Kej, Dist. Beed in RCS No.186/2002. It is contended that original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the children of plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.1, born out of a legal wedlock. Respondent No.1 herein is defendant No.1 in the suit.

4. It thus emerges from the fact situation that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 herein are claiming to be the children of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had denied the factum of his wedlock with petitioner No.2. In this backdrop, the petitioners had moved an application Exh. 55 seeking a DNA test of respondent No.1 to prove his paternity.

5. My attention is drawn to Exh. 55 which is at page No.30 of the petition pap