Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral) - This order of mine shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing No.6231 of 2014 at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff against the impugned order, whereby application for conducting Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (for short “DNA”) test of Jaipal Singh with that of the plaintiff has been declined and 4040 of 2015 at the instance of defendant Nos.3 and 6, namely, Parvinder Kaur and Jaipal Singh, whereby plaintiff has been permitted to lead rebuttal evidence with regard to the genuinity of the Will of Dharam Singh.

2. Plaintiff Jaswinder Pal Kaur instituted the suit and claimed declaration qua 1/6th share of estate of Dharam Singh on various grounds including Dharam Singh had died intestate. The defendants by denying the averments in the plaint, propounded the Will dated 16.12.2001 whereby Dharam Singh had bequeathed the property in favour of Surjit Kaur widow, who stated to have sold the property to various other defendants vide sale deeds dated 02.08.2005, 15.12.2004 and 22.02.2006.

3. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No.6231 of 2014 submitted that the defendants though propounded the Will and annexed photocopy of the same with the written statement and, therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to lead evidence despite the fact that the suit was amended in 2007 whereby challenge was laid to the aforementioned Will. The original Will came into light only during the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses and in view of the order dated 27.04.2015, the trial Court permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

4. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Civil Revision No.4040 of 2015 has impugned the aforementioned order on the ground that the evidence was closed on 07.12.2012, whereas the suit was amended in 2007. The plaintiff moved an application for production of the original Will to lead evidence. Regarding mutation proceedings, plaintiff had suffered an affidavit acknowledging the genuinity of the Will, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

5. Mr. Gurcharan Dass further laid challenge to the impugned order denying the DNA test on the ground that this science has been relied upon by various courts to ascertain the truth with regard to the parentage of Jaipal Singh, who alleged himself to be son of Dharam Singh, whereas he was alleged to be son of the plaintiff. No harm and prejudice would be caused to the defendants in case they are so sure about the parentage for performance of the DNA test and in support relied upon two judgments in Darshan Singh Versus Amarjit Singh @ Surjit Singh @ Kaka Singh & others, 2015(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 630 and Neelam Rani and others Versus Smt.Mainka @ Maina Devi and another, [2014(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3350 : 2014(2) Marriage L.J. 392 (P&H)] : 2014(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 560 and, thus, urged this Court for setting-aside the impugned order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Gurcharan Dass, whereas plea of Mr. Satinder Khanna is liable to be dismissed.

7. No doubt, the suit is at the stage of rebuttal evidence. Even in the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar Versus Narayan Dutt Tiwari, [2012(2) Marriage L.J. 24] : 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 1011 relied upon by this Court, the stage of the suit was similar to the one in the present case. This is science which has been acknowledged/recognized by the courts to ascertain truth with regard to the parentage of a particular person. No harm and prejudice would be caused in case the DNA test of Jaipal Singh is permitted to be conducted. Even he himself admitted to be son of Dharam Singh, for, it is double edged weapon which can go against either of the parties. For the sake of brevity, the findings arrived at in the judgment of Neelam Rani’s case (supra) read thus:-

“2. After hearing t