The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of ordering DNA tests in appropriate cases after balancing the interests of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.08.2015 made in IA.No.836 of 2015 in IA.No.583 of 2010 in OS.No.193 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.08.2015 made in IA.No.836 of 2015 in IA.No.583 of 2010 in OS.No.193 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 1st Defendant is the Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The Plaintiff has filed IA.No.583 of 2010 for subjecting himself and the 1st Defendant to DNA test and the said application was closed on 22.10.2010, observing that after completion of the evidence on both sides, if it is not able to be established that the Plaintiff is not the son of the 1st Defendant, appropriate orders would be passed for paternity test in the said IA. The Plaintiff has filed the petition to reopen IA.No.583 of 2010 and pass necessary orders and the said petition was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved against the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st Defendant.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to collect evidence through DNA test at the fag end of the trial and that the present application has been filed with a delay of 7 years, for which no valid explanation was given and that only to harass the Plaintiff, who is very old aged person, having bad health condition, the present application has been filed. The learned counsel has relied on (2015) 1 SCC 365 (Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy) and (Medida Veeraiah Vs. Meddida Vijaya Narasimha Rao).

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff has submitted that since the suit is for partition and the 1st Defendant has disputed the paternity of the Plaintiff, it is necessary to prove that the Plaintiff is the son of the 1st Defendant, for which, DNA test is required. The learned counsel has relied on an unreported judgment dated 04.09.2017 made in CRP(PD)No.3160 of 2011, by this Court.

5. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. In this case, the Plaintiff has alleged that he is the son of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant has denied that the Plaintiff is his son. Thus, dispute arose with regard to paternity of the Plaintiff for claiming his rights in the suit properties. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed IA.No.583 of 2010 for conducting DNA profiling for himself and the 1st Defendant to prove his paternity. The said application was closed on 22.10.2010, observing that after completion of the evidence on both sides, if it is not able to be established that the Plaintiff is not the son of the 1st Defendant, appropriate orders would be passed for paternity test in the said IA. When the matter was at the part heard stage, the Plaintiff has filed the present application to reopen IA.No.583 of 2010 and pass necessary orders and the same was allowed.

7. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, ordering for DNA test for the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant will serve the ends of justice.

8. Time and again, it has been held in a catena of decisions of various High Courts and the Honourable Supreme Court that a DNA profiling can be ordered in appropriate cases where there is necessity, but at the same time, it cannot also be ordered in a routine manner and no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test and the facts and circumstances of each and every case have to be taken into consideration for ordering