Advocates:
['H V SHARMA', '', 'Amrita Sharma', 'RAKESH KUMAR MANIKPURI', 'Ravindra Sharma', 'A G', 'Anil Mourya', 'Vinod Kumar Tekam', 'SUNIL KUMAR SONI', 'Vijay Chhabra']

-1-

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

-2-

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

-3-

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 civi