1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8239 OF 2009 Bhikaji Sukhdev Gorde, Age 54 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Kelwad, Tal. Rahata, District : Ahmednagar ....Petitioner. Versus 1] Kisan Bhikaji Gorde, Age Major, Occu. Service, 2] Anusayabai w/o Bhikaji Gorde, Age Major, Occu. Household, Both R/o : Kelwad, Tal. Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Shri. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri. N.V. Gaware , Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th August, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition challenges order dated 4th November, 2009 passed below Exh. 115, in Regular Civil Suit No. 595 of 2005, by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Rahata. By this order, the second application of the respondent / plaintiff for conducting D.N.A. test at 2 Forensic Laboratory, Banglore has been allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Trial Court had earlier allowed the application below Exh. 102 filed by the plaintiff for conducting D.N.A. Test at Hyderabad, upon no objection given by the petitioner, the report of said D.N.A. test is received., and unless the trial Court decides either to accept or reject the report, the second application should not have been entertained. 3. In para No. 7 of the order, the Trial has deal with the matter is reproduced below :- “ The dispute before the Court is as to the paternity of the plaintiff and he claims the defendant No. 1 is his father from last 25 years. It is a matter of evidence. He under this application is going to bring on record the evidence of another forensic laboratory. His first application came to be allowed and parties to the suit gave their blood samples. Now the plaintiff is not going to believe the report called on record. When it is the domen of the plaintiff to adduce evidence of his satisfaction. Then there is no any reason to stop him from adduce any more evidence i.e. any scientific evidence from any another laboratory. The question of satisfaction or un-satisfaction of the Court in the present set of facts is not at all material one, when the suit is not closed completely for the evidence and the matter is for the evidence of 3 defendant No. 2 i.e. mother of the plaintiff. Hence, in these facts and circumstances I allow the application at the cost and expenditure of the plaintiff. The plaintiff / applicant to deposit the necessary charges in the Court and after depositing charges next steps will be followed. The application is allowed accordingly”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the defendant No. 2 i.e. mother of the plaintiff is over and at this stage, this application is allowed. It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 2 is supporting the case of the plaintiff, and hence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court, recording the findings as are reproduced above. The learned counsel for the petitioner, could not point out any prohibition in law for the plaintiff to lead evidence to his satisfaction. In view of this, there is no substance in this petition and same is dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] SDM*8239.09WP