Important Point - It is difficult nay impossible for the party alleging such paternity to prove it without any scientific investigation. DNA Test would avoid unnecessary harassment and embarrassment to the persons involved.

1. Though the matter has come up on an application for vacation of the interim order, however, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of, instead of dealing with the application Article 226(3) of the Constitution.

2. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have oppugned the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh whereby the application dated 17.09.2016 filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking conducting of DNA Test, has been allowed. The necessary facts for the decision of the present writ petition are as follows.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for cancellation of four sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 Dalip Singh, inter alia, claiming that the plaintiff No.1 is son of defendant No.1 whereas the plaintiff No.2 is his legally wedded wife. It was contended that the land, which has been sold by way of subject sale deeds dated 21.03.2011, was ancestral/HUF property of Dalip Singh and as such, Dalip Singh had no authority and right to transfer the land, ignoring the rights of the plaintiffs in the undivided property of the coparcenary property.

4. In response to said suit, petitioner-defendants filed written statement, disputing the plaintiffs’ version of marriage of Dalip Singh with the plaintiff No.2 Parvati and refuting the allegation of Ramesh (plaintiff No.1) being son of Dalip Singh. It was also, inter alia, contended that the land in question belonged to Mai Lal (father of defendant No.1 Dalip Singh), who died in 1995 and hence, in light of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the defendant No.1, being Class-I heir, is the lawful owner of the property and further that the plaintiffs can not claim any right in the disputed land.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the trial court:

fook|d

1- vk;k oknh la[;k 1 jes'k izfroknh la[;k 1 nyhi flag dk iq= rFkk oknhuh la[;k 1 ikoZrh izfroknh la[;k 1 nyhi flag dh oS| iRuh gS\

2- vk;k oknxr d`f"k Hkwfe oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k dh iq'rSuh & iSr`d o vfoHkkftr rFkk la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh lg~nkf;dh lEifr gS ,oa oknhx.k izR;sd dk blesa 1@5 fgLlk gS\

3- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk izfroknh la[;k 2 ds i{k esa mDr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa fu"ikfnr 4 foØ;&i= fcuk fdlh ikfjokfjd vko';drk ds fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s gS rFkk izfroknh la[;k 1 dks cgyk Qqlykdj fcuk dksbZ izfrQy vnk fd;s] uqekba'kh rkSj ij mDr foØ;&i= fu"ikfnr djok;s x;s gS\

4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 2 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr oknxr pkjksa foØ;&i= oknhx.k ds gd vf/kdkjksa ds izfr 'kwU;] izHkkoghu ,oa csvlj gS\

5- vk;k oknhx.k dCts o vUrj.k ds lEcU/k esa fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\

6- vk;k oknhx.k dks okn vk/kkj izkIr ugha gS\

7- vk;k okn viw.kZ U;k;ky; 'kqYd ij is'k fd;k x;k gS\

8- vk;k okn jktLo U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gh gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; esa pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

9- vk;k izfroknh cSad ls oknxr d`f"k Hkwfe jgueqDr djok;s fcuk oknhx.k vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS\

10- vuqrks"k\

Li"V fd, x,

lgh@&

¼';ke lqUnj ykVk½

vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k

Hkknjk ftyk & guqekux<A

6. After leading evidence by both the parties, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 17.09.2016 under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC and requested the court to conduct DNA Test, as the defendants have denied the assertion of the plaintiff that Parvati is wife while Ramesh (the plaintiff No.1) is a son of defendant No.1 Dalip Singh. It was indicated in the application that for the purpose of doing complete justice, DNA Test is necessary in the facts of the case.

7. In response to said application, the defendants No.1 and 2 filed a reply dated 21.10.2016 contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have led their evidence and by way of the application under consideration, they could not be given additional chance to produce rather create evidence in their favour.

8. The said application dated 17.09.2016 seeking DNA Test came to be all