Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - The challenge in this revision petition, by petitionersdefendants No.2 to 4 Neelam Rani, daughter of Rajender Prasad and others (for brevity “the defendants”), is to the impugned order dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure P6), by virtue of which, the trial Court has directed the plaintiff & defendant Nos.2 to 4 to appear before the Civil Surgeon to give their samples for D.N.A. Test.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

3. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since no ground is made out, so, the trial court committed the legal mistake to direct the parties, to undergo the DNA Test, lacks merit.

4. As is evident from the record that initially, respondent-plaintiff Smt.Mainka alias Maina Devi d/o Rai Sahab son of Shishpal (for short “the plaintiff”), has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that she is joint owner and in possession of the land in litigation, being the daughter and only legal representative of Rai Sahab, who had died on 5.4.1986 and the mutation No.1470 regarding transfer of the suit land in favour of defendants, on the basis of any alleged civil court decree passed in case No.16 dated 25.2.2008, is a result of fraud, illegal, null, void and not binding on her rights. That means, the plaintiff is claiming her right in the property in dispute, being the daughter/LR of Rai Sahab s/o Shishpal, whereas the defendants have stoutly denied her claim and pleaded themselves to be his LRs. Thus, the grand parents of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are common. The blood relationship between the indicated parties, inter-alia, would be a moot point to be decided after receiving the evidence of the parties during the course of trial by the trial Court. In that eventuality, in order to prove their relationship, the scientific DNA Test is very much essential to arrive at the truth and to decide the real controversy between them to effectively adjudicate the present suit. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants in this regard.

5. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly allowed the application (Annexure P4) for DNA Test of plaintiff & defendants No.2 to 4, in view of ratio of law laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court in cases Soma Rama Chandram v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 707; Buridhi Vanajakshmi v. Buridhi Venkata Satya Varaha Prasad Gangadhar Rao and another 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 130; Delhi High Court in case Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another, [2012(2) Marriage L.J. 24] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 1011; Kerala High Court in cases Sathya Raj v. Jayaprakash 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 516; Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 801 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Smt. Savitabai w/o Chandrabhan v. Chandrabhan Dubey 2006 AIR (M.P.) 135, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P6), which, in substance, is as under (para 6):-

“Presently, the suit is at the stage of rebuttal evidence and argument. Both the parties have led their evidence. Defendants have categorically denied the fact that applicant/plaintiff is daughter of deceased Rai Sahab, who was real brother of Rajender Prasad (husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendants no.2 to 4). The main contention of learned counsel for the respondents/defendants is that plaintiff is to prove her case by leading evidence and defendants cannot be forced to undergo the D.N.A. Test. It is correct that plaintiff is to stand on his/her own legs, but, when a fact can be ascertained conclusively by making use of modern scientific technique, then, merely on this ground instant application cannot be dismissed. There is no harm in using advanced scientific technique when they are going to help the court in adjudication of