JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer in Civil Suit No.77/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, for declaration of the will dated 10.04.2014, to be null and void and for permanent injunction, contending therein that the plaintiff-petitioner is daughter of Shri. Badri and Defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi is the wife of Shri. Badri and mother of plaintiff-petitioner. Badri has expired on 14.01.2017.

2.1 Late Shri. Badri was having agriculture land, which was an ancestral land recorded in the name of Shri Badri; father of the plaintiff-petitioner who had half share in the property. Out of this land, some was acquired for the Central Spine Scheme by RIICO and father of the plaintiff-petitioner got eight plots through different allotment letters in lieu of his share in the land.

2.2 A Will dated 10.04.2014, which was registered was executed by her father, whereas he had no right to execute the Will as the property was an ancestral one. In the property, plaintiff-petitioner and her mother i.e. defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi had a right. On 17.02.2017, the knowledge of the Will came to the plaintiff and thereafter, the suit was filed for declaration of the Will as null and void and further, declaration was sought that the plaintiff-petitioner may be declared as owner of the half share of her father.

3. The said suit was opposed by the defendants-respondents, denying the fact of plaintiff-Smt. Bhauri Devi being daughter of Shri Badri. Further, defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi, who is wife of Shri Badri also denied the factum of plaintiff-petitioner being her daughter. It was also alleged in the reply by the defendants- respondents that Shri Badri and Smt. Bila Devi had a son named as Shri. Ramswaroop and therefore, prayed that the suit may be rejected.

4. The dispute thus, arose that whether the plaintiff-petitioner is the daughter of Shri Badri and defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi or not and to crystallize the issue, an application was moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC, contending that the paternity of the plaintiff-petitioner, could be proved beyond doubt through scientific investigation, i.e., by conducting a DNA test of the mother Smt. Bila Devi, the plaintiff Smt.

Bhauri Devi and of defendant No.3 Ramswaroop.

5. The plaintiff-petitioner in the application also drew attention of the learned trial Court to Issue No.5, which was to the effect that whether the plaintiff-petitioner is the daughter of Late Shri Badri or not. Further, in the application it was claimed that it was even necessary to find out that whether defendant No.3-Ramswaroop is the son of Smt. Bila Devi or not and for that purpose also scientific investigation i.e. DNA test is required to be carried out. Moreover, it was contended that defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi aged about 90 years is under undue pressure of defendants No.1 & 3. Therefore, also it was necessary to carry out the DNA test, where the Court can through scientific investigation arrive at a conclusive conclusion.

6. In reply to the said application, the defendants denied the averments made in the application and stated in the reply that since, defendant No.2-Smt. Bila Devi had denied the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner being the daughter of Shri Badri and Smt. Bila Devi. Therefore, there is no necessity of any scientific investigation to be conducted. It was also contended in the reply that if any such order is passed, then the same will affect the privacy of the defendants. It was further contended by the respondents that the burden is on the plaintiff-petitioner to prove the fact that she is the daughter of Late Shri. Badri and Smt. Bila Devi. Further, even in t