THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3815 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order, dated 10.09.2024, in I.A.No.60 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2017 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District seeking partition and separate possession of ½ share in the suit schedule property against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to grandfather of the plaintiff namely Late China Thirupathi Reddy, who died long back, leaving behind three sons and two daughters as his legal heirs. After his demise, the property was partitioned orally and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of father of plaintiff. The plaintiff is only daughter to defendant No.1. Since, defendant No.1 addicted to bad habits and due to the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, defendant No.1 without consent of the plaintiff, with an intention to fraud the plaintiff, sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2 by misleading the facts. It is further stated that if the defendants are not restrained from selling the subject property, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property, entitling ½ share in suit schedule property by fixing the metes and that a Commissioner may be appointed for partition the suit schedule property into two equal shares and the plaintiff be delivered separate possession of ½ share in the suit schedule property and bounds etc.

4. It is stated that pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.60 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act, 1872’) seeking a direction to defendant No.1 and the plaintiff to give blood samples before the Lab at Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad, for scientific examination for conducting DNA Profile and the sample can be collected from Lab and after test, the report shall produce before the trial Court. The learned I Additional District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal Distict, through impugned order 10.09.2024 allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submitted that the petitioner did not give consent for taking blood for conducting DNA test and forcefully the lab technicians collected the blood from him. The petitioner is aged about 80 years suffering from old age ailments. He also submitted that the petitioner is bedridden and not in a position to travel for about 600 kilometers from Kurnool to Hyderabad for giving blood samples. The petitioner also filed written statement in the suit on 05.03.2018 wherein he denied the relationship between himself and respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 failed to explain the delay in filing I.A.No.60 of 2024. He also submitted that respondent No.1 has suppressed the material facts that petitioner herein has got married to one Vimalamma and begotten two daughters and one son during their wedlock. The said fact is clear as seen from Ex.A.20-ration card. The plaintiff herself in the cross-examination conducted on 03.02.2020 at paragraph No.2 in the 3^rd line stated that ‘I do not know the year and month of marriage of my parents.’ It is stated that the petitioner and her mother are residing separately for the last five years. The plaintiff has admitted in her pleadin