ORDER :

1. None appears for respondent No. 1 to 3/defendants even after service of notice through substituted mode by paper publication dated 20.11.2021.

2. Notice sent to defendants No. 1 & 2 on the address have been returned back with a note that “door was locked from inside” and it was not opened from the person present inside the house. Thereafter, when Process Server went to address of defendants No. 1 to 3, upon knocking the door, one of lady stated that “they do not want to accept any notice” and the Process Server returned back the copy of notice with an endorsement as above on 22.10.2021.

3. In view of the above, substituted service has been effected through paper publication upon respondents/defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 and thereafter, case is heard finally.

4. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30.03.2021 passed by learned Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur whereby learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for conducting DNA test of the petitioner/ plaintiff and defendant/respondent No.1.

5. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction against respondents/defendants No. 1 to 6, pleading therein that the property in dispute is joint ownership property of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. She is running a beauty parlor business in the part of shop situated at kh. No.616/2. The petitioner/plaintiff is a child born from the relationship of defendants No. 1 & 2. Defendant No.1 was intending to execute document of property in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, but on the objection raised by defendant No.3 who is real sister of petitioner/plaintiff, he could not able to execute the documents in accordance with law. Defendant No.3 also threatened that she will make it prove that plaintiff is not the daughter of defendant No.1 and therefore, the cause of action arose for getting the declaration that petitioner/plaintiff is a child born from the relationship of defendant No.1 & 2 along with other reliefs of share in the property. During pendency of civil suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for undergoing DNA test of defendant No.1 to be conducted by Dr. Ankit Tripathi as also from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Hyderabad. This application was replied by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. After considering application, learned trial Court dismissed the application by impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration that petitioner is a child born from relationship of defendants No. 1 & 2. Until and unless the expert report through scientific method is obtained, lis pending before the Court below cannot be decided. Undergoing DNA test is the only scientific test by which paternity of petitioner /plaintiff can be proved. In reply to application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, respondent No.1/defendant pleaded that if the Court directs to defendant No.1 to undergo DNA test, defendant No.1 is ready and willing to comply with the orders passed by the Court. Defendant No.1 has not objected to undergo DNA test but even then application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is dismissed on extraneous consideration recording that unless and until there is satisfaction of the Court, it cannot be ordered. He pointed out that in the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act as well as in the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff has very specifically pleaded that defendant is aged about 75 years and is suffering from medical ailments. Hence, there is urgency also to order for undergoing DNA test of defendant No.1. He contended that when DNA test is only a scientific method for proving paternity or legitimacy of the birth of petitioner/plaintiff from the relationship of defen