AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Amit Rawal, J.(Oral)—Petitioner-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 29.04.2016, whereby, application at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff calling upon them to give DNA Test in order to establish the claim in the suit, has been allowed.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendants submits that there is a categoric admission in the written statement denying the relationship with the late Sagru, much less, with the defendants. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and cannot be permitted to collect the evidence in the manner and mode as has been adopted. Even the place and the intimation has been kept at her convenience and thus, order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his aforementioned contention, he relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal 1993 AIR (SC) 2295 and thus urges this Court for setting aside of the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants and appraised the paper book.
The judgment referred above is in respect of the proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but in the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff is basically seeking declaration and permanent injunction being the daughter of Sagru, in essence, sister of defendants. No doubt, Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the party to lead evidence qua relationship but in the absence of the same, party can be permitted to adopt the mode of DNA Test. In case, the petitioner-defendants are sure enough about the relationship, they should not be shirking in offering the DNA Test.
In view of the aforementioned observations, I am of the view that in order to settle the controversy, the application has rightly been allowed and the order cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction, much less, perverse. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.