JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioners for issuing a direction to the plaintiff-respondent to supply her blood sample for getting her DNA test conducted and getting the same compared with the blood samples of the defendant-petitioners for ascertaining the parentage of the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis, as available from the paperbook and from the website of the District Court, are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for declaration that she is owner to the extent of 1/4th share out of the land of Jeet Kaur w/o Sukhdev Singh and also for joint possession of the 1/4th share and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff- respondent averred that she was the daughter of Sukhdev Singh and Jeet Kaur while Jeet Kaur had expired on 19.10.1983. The defendants in this suit were Sukhdev Singh and the defendant-petitioners (sons of Sukhdev Singh). In their written statement dated 08.11.2013, Sukhdev Singh and the defendant-petitioners inter-alia denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the daughter of Sukhdev Singh and Jeet Kaur.

3. On 12.03.2014 the Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for joint possession as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

4. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit ? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit due to her own act, conduct ? OPD

7. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPD

8. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred ? OPD

9. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court ? OPD

10. Relief.

4. The plaintiff-respondent led her evidence, which was then closed on 01.07.2016. On 29.07.2016 Sukhdev Singh and the defendant- petitioners (sons of Sukhdev Singh) moved an application for directing the plaintiff-respondent to get her DNA test conducted. This application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent and vide order dated 23.11.2016 the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Sukhdev Singh and the defendant-petitioners (sons of Sukhdev Singh) filed CR-103-2017 in this Court against the order dated 23.11.2016. During the pendency of CR-103- 2017 Sukhdev Singh died and on 27.07.2018 the said CR-103-2017 was dismissed as withdrawn and the following order was passed :

'1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner No.1-Sukhdev Singh has died during pendency of the present revision petition, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous as DNA profile of petitioner No.1 was in issue.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present petition with a liberty to the son of the petitioner namely Sukhwinder Singh to file similar application before the trial Court.

3. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

4. In the event of doing so, the same may be decided in accordance with law.'

5. On 17.08.2018 the defendant-petitioners filed two applications before the Trial Court - one for bringing on record the defendant-petitioners as LRs of Sukhdev Singh, and second for issuance of directions to the plaintiff-respondent to get her DNA test conducted by giving the necessary samples of blood and getting the same compared with the blood samples of the defendant-petitioners for ascertaining the parentage of the plaintiff- respondent. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application regarding her DNA test and filed a reply. Vide impugned order dated 08.12.2018 the Trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has contended that the Trial