The High Court · 2025

Petition ttnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit i'iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in lA.No.256 of 2024 in OS.No.37 of 2015, dated. 15- 7-2025 on the lile of the Hon'ble Senior civil Judge At Mahabubabad. Counsel for the l)etitioner(s) . S Rl. Gund tapalli V. S. S. S. Sruth i Counsel for the llespondents: Gaddam Jagannatham The Court made the following: ORDER ,l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL DATE OF ORDER: O4. L2.ZO?S o Between: Guguloth Mangilal and four others AND ...Petitioner Bhanoth Mangamma and 14 others (Respondent Nos.2 to 15 are not necessary parties to the Revision Petitionf Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated L5.o7.2025 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2024 in o.S.No.3T of 2o1S by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession utde o.S.No.37 of 2o1S stating that she is the daughter of one sundar, who is the father of petitioners herein, through his l.t wife. After the death of lst wife, the said Sundar married to one Janaki and the respondents 2 to 6 were b-* /1 2 born to them. It is further submitted that petitioner and defendant No.1 are th.e children of Sundar through his l"t wife. During his lifetime, the father of respondent Nos.2 to 6 possessed more than B0 acres of lzrnd and promised to give the petitioner her share. Subsequently, the father of petitioner and defendant No.l died. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondents therein demanding for her share. It is further submitted during the cross-examination of PW.1, the rr:spondents denied the reiationship of petitioner with them. As such, the petitioner filed I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2O15 seeking for DNA Test on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondentsr in the said I.A, learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad allowed I.A.No.256 of 2024 directing the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 to appear before RFSL, Warangal on O1.08.2025 for giving blood samples for conducting DNA test.

4. Aggrieued by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, the petitioner filed the present C.R.P.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learne:d counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court ought to hatre dismissed the petition as the sarne is filed at pre-mature i i I ! t I / ,i i 3 stage and ought not to have entertained when the trial was not concluded by both sides. It is further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the settled law that "the DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner as a matter of course". It is further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the settled law that "the DNA testing can be issued if the test of "eminent need" otherwise cannot be entertained, and prayed to allow the C.R.p. by setting the aside passed by the learned Senior civil Judge, Mahabubabad in I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.N o.37 of 2O 15.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is legal and proper. It is further contended that the suit is one for partition and separate possession, wherein the relationship and status of the parties constihrte the very foundation of the claim. During the cross- examination of PW.l, the petitioners have categorically denied the paternity and relationship of the respondent with late Sundzrr, thereby giving rise to a serious dispute. It is further contended that the application seeking DNA test was not filed as a matter of course, but only after such denial was brought on record. The direction for DNA testing satisfies the test of "eminent need,rr, as no other reliable evidence would:c6lhclusively determine the issue of relationship and relied upon the judgment of the Honlcle Apex Court in Narayan Dutt \ =\ 4 c)r Tiwari v. Rohit Shekar and Anotherl, wherein it was held that "DNA testing can be issued if the test of ceminent need." is satisfied and. not be allowed lbr the mere asking. It is further contended no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the impugned order and that the same does not suflfer from any illegality or irregularity, B. This (lourt has carefull5r considered the rival submissions and perused thr: material available on record. It is well settled that DNA testing cannot be directed routinely, and such direction can be issued only when the Court finds an eminent and compelling necessity for the sarne. In the present case, the suit being one for partition and separate pcssession, the respondent's entitlement depends merely on establishin5l her relationship with late Sundar. The petitioners having specifically denied such relationship during trial, the burden lies on the respon<lent to prove the same. In such circumstances, the trial court rightly found that the DNA test would assist effectively in adjudicatin,g the real controversy between the parties. Hence, this Court finds no pen/ersity, illegality or irregularity in the ord.er passed by the trial court.

9. Accor,iing1y, this Civil Revision P:IE. T di"jli?""9:_ Therg shall be no ord.er as to costs. : | (2OL2) L2 SC:C 554 / ,.,,,";+-Xj : :! !l I i: l: i: l: l: I 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed i I : i i \ To, / SDl- K. BHAVANI SWAMY "iisiirnNr REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER livil Judge At tt/lahabubabad'(with records if any)

1. The Senior ( 2. One CC to SRI' GundlapalliV'S'S'S'sruthi' 3. one cc to sRr. Gaddam Jagannatham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies t.n/Wr Advocate [OPUCI PSL I / HIGH COURT DATED:041121)-02r.) ORDER CRP.No.2925 of 2025 to,R lrlt s o(J o 5 flltn 2026 > 7 * trPrcP€ o t CIVIL REVISI0N PEI'ITION IS DISMISSED 1,