Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandru, filed a suit (O.S.No.5/2017) before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, claiming that defendant No.1, Huchcharayappa Hanumanthappa Hullinakatti, is his father and seeking a share in the suit schedule properties and mesne profits. Defendant No.1 denied the paternity. After evidence was led by both sides, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 under Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking a DNA test to establish the father-son relationship. The Trial Court rejected the application on 02.08.2019. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the Trial Court had framed issues and recorded evidence, but the core dispute of paternity remained unresolved. The court noted that the plaintiff had examined himself and four witnesses, and defendant No.1 had been examined and cross-examined. The application for DNA test was filed after evidence, but the High Court found that the Trial Court's rejection was erroneous as a DNA test is a scientific method to ascertain the truth and would help in rendering complete justice. The court relied on the principle that when there is a serious dispute regarding paternity, the court should not hesitate to order a DNA test. The impugned order was quashed, and the application was allowed. The Trial Court was directed to refer the parties to the concerned DNA testing centre and proceed with the suit after receiving the report.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - DNA Test - Paternity Dispute - Order 26 Rule 10(a) R/W Section 151 CPC and Section 112 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The plaintiff sought a DNA test to establish that defendant No.1 is his father, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court held that when there is a serious dispute regarding paternity and the plaintiff has adduced evidence, a DNA test is necessary to ascertain the truth and render complete justice. The impugned order was set aside and the application was allowed. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for DNA test to determine paternity when the plaintiff claims to be the son of defendant No.1 and the defendant denies the relationship.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2019 on I.A.No.6 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur in O.S.No.5/2017 is quashed. I.A.No.6 is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to refer the parties to the concerned DNA testing centre and proceed with the suit after receiving the report.
Law Points
- DNA test
- paternity
- Order 26 Rule 10(a) CPC
- Section 112 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- legitimacy
- scientific evidence
- procedural fairness
