IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2925 of 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 04.12.2025

Between:

Guguloth Mangilal and four others

...Petitioner

AND

Bhanoth Mangamma and 14 others

(Respondent Nos.2 to 15 are not necessary parties

to the Revision Petition)

...Respondent

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

15.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2015 by the

learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.37 of 2015 stating that she is the daughter of one Sundar, who is the father of petitioners herein, through his 1st wife. After the death of 1st wife, the said Sundar married to one Janaki and the respondents 2 to 6 were

born to them. It is further submitted that petitioner and defendant No.1 are the children of Sundar through his 1^st wife. During his lifetime, the father of respondent Nos.2 to 6 possessed more than 80 acres of land and promised to give the petitioner her share. Subsequently, the father of petitioner and defendant No.1 died. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondents therein demanding for her share. It is further submitted during the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondents denied the relationship of petitioner with them. As such, the petitioner filed I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2015 seeking for DNA Test on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents in the said I.A, learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad allowed I.A.No.256 of 2024 directing the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 to appear before RFSL, Warangal on 01.08.2025 for giving blood samples for conducting DNA test.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, the petitioner filed the present C.R.P.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court ought to have dismissed the petition as the same is filed at pre-mature stage and ought not to have entertained when the trial was not concluded by both sides. It is further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the settled law that “the DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner as a matter of course”. It is further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the settled law that “the DNA testing can be issued if the test of “eminent need” otherwise cannot be entertained, and prayed to allow the C.R.P. by setting the aside passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad in I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2015.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is legal and proper. It is further contended that the suit is one for partition and separate possession, wherein the relationship and status of the parties constitute the very foundation of the claim. During the cross- examination of PW.1, the petitioners have categorically denied the paternity and relationship of the respondent with late Sundar, thereby giving rise to a serious dispute. It is further contended that the application seeking DNA test was not filed as a matter of course, but only after such denial was brought on record. The direction for DNA testing satisfies the test of “eminent need”, as no other reliable evidence would conclusively determine the issue of relationship and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekar and Another1, wherein it was held that “DNA testing can be issued if the test of “eminent need” is satisfied and not be allowed for the mere asking. It is further contended no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the impugned order and that the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

8. This Court has carefully considered t