AFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 245 of 2021 Smt. Neelam Sharma W/o Shri Rajendra Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Agrawal Saw Mill, Gondpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Brijmohan Dua S/o Late Seetaram Dua Aged About 70 Years R/o Front Of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Jekab Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Chandrakali W/o Brijmohan Dua Aged About 60 Years R/o Front of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Jekab Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Durgesh Nandini @ Babli D/o Brijmohan Dua Aged About 45 Years R/o Front of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Jekab Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur,chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Santoshi Jangde S/o Venket Jangde Aged About 39 Years R/o Village-

Damapur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. Krishna Dua S/o Late Seetaram Dua R/o 67, Tapowan Complex, Somal Bada, Nagpur, Maharashtra., District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri H.V. Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : None present For Respondent No.4. : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of Shri Anil Mourya, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Shri Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : None present Proceedings through Video Conferencing S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order

07/02/2022

1. None appears for respondent No. 1 to 3/defendants even after service of notice through substituted mode by paper publication dated 20.11.2021.

2. Notice sent to defendants No. 1 & 2 on the address have been returned back with a note that “door was locked from inside” and it was not opened from the person present inside the house. Thereafter, when Process Server went to address of defendants No. 1 to 3, upon knocking the door, one of lady stated that “they do not want to accept any notice” and the Process Server returned back the copy of notice with an endorsement as above on

22.10.2021.

3. In view of the above, substituted service has been effected through paper publication upon respondents/defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 and thereafter, case is heard finally.

4. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30.03.2021 passed by learned Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur whereby learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for conducting DNA test of the petitioner/

plaintiff and defendant/respondent No.1.

5. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction against respondents/defendants No. 1 to 6, pleading therein that the property in dispute is joint ownership property of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. She is running a beauty parlor business in the part of shop situated at kh. No.616/2. The petitioner/plaintiff is a child born from the relationship of defendants No. 1 & 2. Defendant No.1 was intending to execute document of property in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, but on the objection raised by defendant No.3 who is real sister of petitioner/plaintiff, he could not able to execute the documents in accordance with law. Defendant No.3 also threatened that she will make it prove that plaintiff is not the daughter of defendant No.1 and therefore, the cause of action arose for getting the declaration that petitioner/plaintiff is a child born from the relationship of defendant No.1 & 2 along with other reliefs of share in the property. During pendency of civil suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for undergoing DNA test of defendant No.1 to be conducted by Dr. Ankit Tripathi as also from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science Se