Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the Decree and Order dated 09-01-2026, passed in I.A.No.777/2025 in O.S.No.56/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the suit in I.A.No.777/2025 in O.S.No.56/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, during the pendency of the Revision Petition and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the decree and order dated 09.01.2026, passed in I.A.No.777 of 2025 in O.S.No.56 of 2023 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.56 of 2023 for partition of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the said suit.

3. In the said suit, the petitioner herein denied that the petitioner is not a father of the respondent and the respondent was born to the petitioner‟s elder brother. In order to prove the said contention, that the petitioner is not a biological father of the respondent, the petitioner herein, who is the 1st defendant, filed an application vide I.A.No.777 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 10-A r\w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court to issue a commission to the concerned qualified scientific person at the Government approved forensic science laboratory and also direct the petitioner and the respondent to undergo a Deoxyribonucleic acid test (hereinafter for short „DNA) before the commissioner on an urgent basis.

4. Learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, vide order 09.01.2026 dismissed the said application observing that it is settle legal proposition that the burden is always on the respondent-plaintiff to prove her case with cogent, oral and documentary evidence and the plaintiff cannot depends on the weakness of defendants.

5. Assailing the said order dated 09.01.2026, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the following grounds:

“…5. The reasoning adopted by the trail court that, burden of proof to prove the paternity is on the plaintiff/ respondent, though to some extent is right, but it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to disprove the same, as the suit is filed for partition of the properties, in which every party is a plaintiff/s and also defendant/s.

6. The trail court should have observed that, the respondent/ plaintiff filed counter refusing to undergo for DNA test, which itself shows the claim of the plaintiff with regard to paternity is false and thereby the trail court should have allowed the petition.

7. The trail court should have observed that, the petition for DNA test, if allowed would goes to the route of the matter of the case of the plaintiff.

8. The trail court should have observed that, even if the respondent /plaintiff refuses to accept for DNA test, after the petition is allowed, the court can take adverse inference against the plaintiff…”

6. This Court recently dismissed C.R.P.No.3393 of 2025 by relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia¹(2024) 7 SCC 773, wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that - “The question as to whether a DNA test should be permitted on the child, is to be analyzed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents. The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the respondent-husband to prove by other evidence, the adulterous conduct