JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for conducting a DNA test of the defendant-respondent has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendant-respondent has wrongly been mentioned in the revenue record as son of Sharam Singh while sanctioning mutation No.1087 of inheritance regarding the estate of Sharam Singh as described in the plaint. It has been averred that Sharam Singh had died on 18.04.2005 leaving behind the plaintiff-petitioner as the only daughter and legal heir. Kulwant Kaur mother of the plaintiff-petitioner was alive at the time of death of Sharam Singh and that she also died on 26.02.2012. It is further the case set up that the defendant-respondent is the real son of Iqbal Singh and Sawinder Kaur but he wrongly claims to being the son of Sharam Singh and Kulwant Kaur. During the course of evidence being led by the plaintiff-petitioner, the present application was moved for conducting a DNA test of the defendant-respondent with that of the plaintiff-petitioner as well as the alleged mother of the defendant-respondent Sawinder Kaur. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that in order to determine the controversy in hand it is essential to get the DNA test conducted.

4. Heard.

5. It has been noticed in the order passed by the Trial Court that the defendant-respondent had denied his willingness to get the DNA test conducted. The plaintiff-petitioner has come to the Court alleging herself to being the daughter of Sharam Singh and Kulwant Kaur and further that the defendant-respondent had no connection with Sharam Singh and Kulwant Kaur and that he was actually the son of Iqbal Singh and Sawinder Kaur. The onus to prove her case lies upon the plaintiff-petitioner. Two witnesses have been examined till now.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta & Ors. [2022 (1) SCC 20] inter-alia has held as under :

"7. The pleadings were exchanged quite early in Civil Suit No.53 of 2013, but only after closure of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants filed application on 19-4-2017 for subjecting the plaintiff to a DNA test. The question therefore is, whether in a declaratory suit where ownership over coparcenary property is claimed, the plaintiff, against his wishes, can be subjected to the DNA test. The related question is whether the plaintiff without subjecting himself to a DNA test, is entitled to establish his right over the property in question, through other material evidence. The timing of the application is equally relevant. The plaintiff has already led evidence from his side to prove relationship between the parties and at this stage whether the High Court should have directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test. Another issue of concern is whether in the absence of consent, a party can be forced to provide sample for a DNA test.

8. This Court in Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta [Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta, (2005) 4 SCC 449] had declared that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine but only in deserving cases. A petition was filed in that case for grant of succession certificate in respect of properties of the deceased. The plaintiff claimed to be the deceased's daughter and the only Class 1 legal heir, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The deceased had d