A party cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test without a strong prima facie case established by the requesting party, emphasizing the burden of proof and privacy rights.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner - defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P6) passed by ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonepat during the proceedings of Civil Suit No.381 of 2017 titled 'Ramdei @ Om Pati v. Chand Kaur and others', whereby an application moved by respondent No.1-plaintiff for taking blood samples for conducting the DNA test, has been allowed.

2.1 According to the petitioner-Chand Kaur, she had earlier filed a Civil Suit No.436 of 2007 against Attar Singh, Siya Ram and Rattan Singh (respondents No.2 to 4 herein), claiming the suit property to be inherited by her from her father Harphool Singh. She had challenged a Will, which was relied upon by the respondents Attar Singh etc. Suit of the petitioner-Chand Kaur was decreed on 19.04.2012. That judgment and decree was upheld up to this Court in RSA-4679-2013 on 15.07.2014.

2.2. Petitioner then filed an execution petition in respect of the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012, during which Smt. Ramdei @ Omi Pati (respondent No.1 herein) filed 3rd party objections, by claiming herself to be the daughter of Harphool Singh. Not only this, said Ramdei @ Om Pati filed civil suit No.381 of 2017 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction by claiming herself to be a daughter of Harphool Singh along with petitioner-Chand Kaur. She challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012 to have been obtained by Chand Kaur-petitioner by way of fraud.

2.3 The petitioner filed written statement in the aforesaid suit, raising objection that plaintiff of the suit Smt. Ramdei @ Om Pati in the previous litigation had all along been claiming herself to be the daughter of Shiv Dayal. The petitioner made reference of not only the various civil litigations, but also the documents, which had been produced by the said respondent including Sirza Nasab, Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card and mutation of inheritance etc., wherein respondent No.1 Ramdei @ Omi Pati had claimed herself to be the daughter of Shiv Dayal and had inherited his property. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the Suit No.381 of 2017 had been filed by respondent No.1 in collusion with respondent Nos.2 to 4 after the passing of the judgment & decree dated 19.04.2012 and in order to prolong the result of the execution.

2.4 During the pendency of the suit, as filed by Ramdei @ Om Pati, said Ramdei @ Omi Pati moved an application for taking blood samples of petitioner and respondent No.1 for conducting DNA test in order to claim that they were the daughters of Harphool Singh. That application has been allowed by the Court by way of the impugned order dated 07.05.2018, which has been assailed by way of the present petition.

3. Ld. counsel contends that respondent No.1 has all along been admitting herself to be the daughter of Shiv Dayal in the various litigation's as well as in the various documents relied by her in the previous litigation's and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is further contended by ld. counsel that since it is respondent No.1 (plaintiff of the Civil Suit No.381 of 2017), who claimed to be the daughter of Harphool Singh, therefore, the burden of proof lies upon her to produce the cogent evidence so as to prove her assertion and that Court cannot permit collecting the evidence by conducting the DNA test in this regard.

4. Notice of motion was issued. Initially appearance was made on behalf of the respondents, but later on, nobody put in appearance so as to contest the petition.

5. I have considered submissions of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book.

6. Since it is the plaintiff - respondent N: 1, who approached the court, by claiming herself to be the daughter of Harphool Singh along with the petitioner-defendant No.1-Chand Kaur, which assertion has been denied by the petitioner, the question is that plaintiff can ask for conducting DNA test, particularly, when petitioner has denied her consent for the purpose. The lega