JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J. The present application displays a blatant refusal by a party to the litigation to comply with the court direction made in accordance with law to furnish a blood sample for DNA testing which would enable authoritative adjudication on the real issue in the matter. For this purpose, the defendant no. 1 has filed IA No. 10394/2011 dated 30th May, 2011 seeking the following prayers:

"(a) direct the plaintiff or the learned Deputy Registrar of this court or any other authority or officer not to pressurize, coerce, compel or force the petitioner in any manner to involuntarily provide blood and/or tissue sample for DNA analysis.

(b) Direct that till the abovementioned prayer is finally considered by this court, the order of the learned Deputy Registrar directing the applicant to deliver blood sample on 1.6.2011 may kindly be deferred or kept in abeyance."

2. Before considering the application on the merits of the submissions made before this court, it is necessary to consider certain essential facts which emerge from the record.

Factual Narration

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit inter alia seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the naturally born son of the defendants and that the defendant no.1 is the father of the plaintiff. It is asserted that, though he was born to Smt. Ujjwala Sharma, defendant no. 1 whilst her marriage to Sh. B. P. Sharma subsisted, the plaintiff was not born from their wedlock. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the report of blood samples drawn from Shri B.P. Sharma and DNA profiling which have been compared with the DNA profiling of the plaintiff's blood sample which report reflects that Sh.B.P. Sharma cannot be his (the plaintiff's) biological father. Besides the report, the plaintiff also relies upon a joint affidavit by himself and Sh.B.P. Sharma stating that such blood samples were furnished voluntarily and the admission by Sh.B.P. Sharma in the divorce petition filed by him and Smt. Ujjawala Sharma-defendant no.2.

4. The plaintiff has categorically asserted that he was born from an extramarital relationship between the defendants. In this regard, he places reliance on the proximity between the parties in the plaint and relies on photographs which according to the plaintiff manifest that the defendants as well as the plaintiff shared an intimate relationship. In her written statement the defendant no.2-the plaintiff's biological mother supports the plaintiff.

5. The defendant no. 1 does not dispute that the plaintiff is the biological son of the defendant no.2, but denies relationship or intimacy with her as well as the plaintiff.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed IA No. 4720/2008 on 11th April, 2008 seeking a direction to the defendant no. 1 to submit to DNA testing. This application though opposed by the defendant no.1, was allowed by the detailed judgment dated 23rd December, 2010 wherein the court inter alia rejected the pleas of the defendant no.1 that the birth of the plaintiff on 15th February, 1979 during the subsistence of the marriage of Dr. Ujjawala Sharma and Sh. B.P. Sharma invited an absolute presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

7. The following directions were issued by the judgment dated 23rd December, 2010 :-

"45. In view of the above conclusions, the application has to succeed. The parties or their counsel are directed to appear before the Joint Registrar on 8th February, 2011. The Joint Registrar shall obtain particulars and details to facilitate the DNA testing of the first defendant; the said defendant is directed to furnish such sample on a date and time to be designated by the Joint Registrar, by taking or drawing appropriate samples after ascertaining the details from the concerned accredited agency i.e. Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (Constituent Laboratory of the Council of Scientific Industrial Research, Government of India, Habsiguda Uppal Road, Hyderabad - 500 007, Andhra