Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Subhash Mendiratta – Appellant
Versus
Sureshb Mendiratta – Respondent
C.R.P. 172 of 2023 & CM APPL. 34505 of 2023 & CM APPL. 34506 of 2023
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Nemo, for the Respondent.
The discretionary power of the court to decide applications under Order XII Rule 6, the requirement for clear and unequivocal admissions of fact for passing a decree under this rule, and the need for expert testimony to validate the evidentiary value of DNA reports.
Headnote:
DNA Report - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 12 Rule 6, Section 151 - [Order 12 Rule 6, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the nature and scope of Order XII Rule 6 and emphasized the discretionary power of the court to decide applications under this provision. It highlighted the requirement for clear and unequivocal admissions of fact for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6. The court also emphasized the need for expert testimony to validate the evidentiary value of DNA reports and concluded that the dismissal of the suit solely based on the DNA report at the revision stage was not justified.
Fact of the Case:
An injunction suit was filed against the Petitioner by the Respondent regarding a property dispute. The Respondent claimed to be the son of the property owner, leading to a dispute over inheritance. The DNA report revealed the Respondent's parentage, and the Petitioner sought dismissal of the suit based on the report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the suit solely based on the DNA report at the revision stage was not justified. It emphasized the need for clear and unequivocal admissions of fact for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 and the requirement for expert testimony to validate the evidentiary value of DNA reports.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit could be dismissed solely based on the DNA report at the revision stage, without clear and unequivocal admissions of fact and expert testimony validating the report's evidentiary value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court to decide applications under Order XII Rule 6, the requirement for clear and unequivocal admissions of fact for passing a decree under this rule, and the need for expert testimony to validate the evidentiary value of DNA reports.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the dismissal of the suit solely based on the DNA report at the revision stage was not justified, and the underlying objects of the section 115 CPC did not warrant modification of the impugned order.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Ld. Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No.596665 of 2016, titled as Suresh Mendiratta Versus Subhash Mendiratta, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner under the provisions of order 12 rule 6 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further to allow the present revision petition of the petitioner with costs through out, thereby allowing the application moved by the petitioner under order 12 rule 6 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissing the suit filed by the respondent, in the interest of justice.
Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent to meet the ends of justice."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. A perusal of the record reveals that an injunction suit was filed against the Petitioner by the Respondent regarding the ground floor and the third-floor portion of the property bearing No. 2446, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
3. The Respondent claimed to be the son of Smt. Geeta Devi and Shri Khem Chand and that on the demise of Smt. Geeta Devi, he had inherited the said property where the Petitioner herein were living as a licensee. Upon termination of the said license by the Respondent, he sought directions from the Ld. Trial Court for the Petitioner herein to vacate the property. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed his written submissions stating that he is the real brother of the Respondent and that the Respondent is the real son of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Shri Locha Ram and not Smt. Geeta Devi, who was the real sister of Smt. Laxmi Devi and the owner of the aforesaid property. During her lifetime Smt. Geeta Devi had executed her Will dated 8th February 2008 bequeathing the said property in favor of Smt. Laxmi Devi.
4. Smt. Laxmi Devi during her lifetime had filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for permanent injunction against the Respondent and an application was filed by Smt. Laxmi Devi for conducting D.N.A. test of the Respondent to conclude whether he is the son of Smt. Geeta Devi and Shri Khem Chand or he is the son of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Shri Locha Ram. Upon no objection by both the parties, they were directed to appear before the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for conducting the D.N.A. test.
5. Eight months later, the Respondent filed an application seeking quashing of the order directing the D.N.A. test to be conducted and the same was allowed and a review application filed thereto was dismissed. Smt. Laxmi Devi then filed a Civil Misc. Main Petition No.1202 of 2019 against the said order after which both the parties were directed to provide their blood samples for the D.N.A. test vide order dated 30th October 2019. The Respondent's application for review was also dismissed.
6. Subsequently, parties appeared before Central Forensic Science Laboratory and gave their respective blood samples. A report dated 3rd February 2020 stated that the Respondent is the son of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Shri Locha Ram and is not the son of Smt. Geeta Devi and Shri Khem Chand.
7. Thereafter, Smt. Laxmi Devi filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the injunction suit pending before the trial court. During the pendency of the said application, she died.
8. The Petitioner (son of Laxmi Devi) herein moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of t
