The court clarified that a decision regarding a DNA test request does not constitute a final ruling affecting the parties' rights, thus not appealable.

(Enclosure 79)

Aslam Zainuddin J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application in encl 79 by the defendants for the plaintiff and 1st defendant to undergo a DNA test to confirm whether they are siblings. The plaintiff had filed a writ to claim inter alia that he be given a share in the estate of their mother's estate. The defendants' contention was that the plaintiff is an adopted child and therefore not entitled to inherit their mother's property. Enclosure 79 was filed by the defendants to verify the claim that the plaintiff was indeed a biological child of their mother. The issue in this application is whether the plaintiff should undergo the test or not. I made a ruling that the application be allowed but the plaintiff to willingly without compulsion submit to the test.

[2] The reasons for the defendants' application were:

"1. Defendan Pertama percaya bahawa Plaintif bukan abang kandungnya dan bukan anak kandung Noriah binti Hashim dan Ahmad bin Said.

2. Permohonan Defendan Pertama untuk mengenepikan tuntutan Plaintif di Lampiran 17 telah ditolak. Permohonan tersebut adalah, antara lainnya, berdasarkan deposisi pihak-pihak yang mengenali dan hidup rapat dengan keluarga Noriah binti Ahmad bahawa Plaintif bukan anak kandung Noriah.

3. Ujian DNA adalah mungkin jalan akhir untuk menentukan samada Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama berkongsi ibu dan bapa yang sama dan akan menjimatkan masa Mahkamah."

[3] Summary of The Plaintiff's Claim.

"4. By the said SOC, the Plaintiff has pleaded that the Plaintiff is the biological child of Noriah binti Mohd Hashim (NRIC No.: 450626-055184/0009797) ("Noriah") and that when Noriah died, Plaintiff is the beneficiary to Noriah's estate consisting of a house at No 35 Jalan Tembaga Emas 20, Taman Sri Skudai, 81300 Johor Bahru (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"), Noriah's savings in Bank Simpanan Nasional (BSN) and Noriah's contributions to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF).

5. The Plaintiff also pleaded that as he is Noriah's biological child, then all proceedings for the administration of Noriah's estate at the Small Estate Office, transfer of ownership of the Property to the First Defendant, sale of the Property to the Third Defendant, distribution of Noriah's savings in EPF and BSN are unlawful, wrong and were done to defraud the Plaintiff.

6. Vide the application in encl 17, the First and the Second Defendants applied to set aside the Plaintiff's claim under r 18, r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("hereinafter referred to as "the said Annexure 17 application").

7. In the application of encl 17, the First and Second Defendants have filed several affidavits from Noriah's relatives and neighbors to support that the Plaintiff is not Noriah's biological son.

8. On 22 June 2022, this Court dismissed encl 17 with costs in the cause.

9. The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not appeal against the Order of dismissal.

APPLICATION TO SUBMIT TO DNA TEST

10. The main issue in the Plaintiff's claim against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant is whether the Plaintiff is the biological child of Noriah binti Hashim.

11. This application will help this Court and the parties on this main issues. The requested DNA test is not to prove that the Plaintiff is a legitimate child but whether the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have the same mother and father based on the DNA Test. The kinship test will help to establish this."

[4] After considering the submissions of the parties, I made an order that the application in encl 79 be allowed but with the condition that the plaintiff is to give his sample willingly and is not compelled to submit to the test if he doesn't want to. Therefore, it is my opinion that the plaintiff is not aggrieved in any way to entitled him to appeal to