The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a strong prima facie case for ordering a DNa test, the right to privacy, and societal repercussions of ordering blood tests in paternity disputes.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 11-10-2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Umri, below Exhibit-68 in R.C.S. No.35/2015, thereby allowing the application filed by respondent and directing the petitioners to undergo DNa test.

3. The petitioners are the original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property and for cancellation of ownership of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the suit property. In the plaint it is contended by the plaintiffs that original defendant No.1 is husband of plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein). Original defendant No.2 (petitioner No.1 herein) is real brother of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein) are sons of defendant No.2.

4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing common written statement where the relation of the plaintiffs with defendant No.1 was admitted. However, it is averred that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No.1 and in the revenue record produced by the plaintiffs in the Court, they are shown to be sons of defendant No.1. So it was specifically denied that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No.2 and it is claimed that they are the sons of defendant No.1.

5. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed. Issue No.2 is that, 'Do the plaintiffs prove that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are children of defendant No.2 ?'

6. Plaintiff No.1 led her evidence. Thereafter, the application Exhibit-68 is filed by plaintiff No.1 contending that as per issue No.2 burden is casted upon the plaintiffs to prove that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No.2. For establishing the paternity of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 it is necessary to conduct their DNa test which will bring true and correct position before the Court. Hence, the defendant No.2, his wife Sheshabai and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 be directed to undergo DNa test.

. This application was strongly opposed by the petitioners/defendants contending that to prove that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No.1 aadhar Card, Voter ID card, School T.C. and Ration card are placed on record. Earlier plaintiff No.1 had filed R.C.S. No.103/1997 against defendant No.1. In that suit defendant No.1 had specifically contended that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of plaintiff No.1 and him. Evidence to that effect was also given on oath by defendant No.1. It was, therefore, stated that the said application is not tenable and be dismissed. The trial Court allowed the application Exhibit-68 and directed defendant Nos. 2, his wife Sheshabai and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to subject themselves to DNa test. The petitioners/defendants are aggrieved by this order.

7. Heard Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, learned advocate for petitioners, Mr. V. S. Panpatte, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. G. a. Gadhe, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

8. By relying on Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another [(2010) 8 SCC 633] and ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 848], the learned advocate for petitioners assailed the impugned order contending that the trial Court has committed a serious error in mechanically allowing the application filed by the respondents. according to him merely for asking, the said application is allowed. He further states that by directing the petitioners to undergo DNa test their right to privacy is violated. In the facts of the present case the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. The learned advocate for respondents on the other ha