Single Bench IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) NO. $01 OF 2011 / PETITIONER Durgesh Singh Thakur; aged, ' . NON APPLICANT about 4O years, son Of Mitanjai Singh Thakur, profession Service (Samiti Sevak, Jila Sahakari KendNya Bank Shakha Ch'uikha‘dan) District Rajnandgaon, per‘mane'nt resident Of Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .‘ VERSUS /" RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Shashikala, wife of Durgesh APLICANTS Singh Thakur, aged about 32 years Minor, Deepakr, son of Durgesh Singh Thakur Minor Pinku, son Of Durgesh Singh Thakur Respondent No. 2 & 3 are being minOr children represented through Smt. Shashikala, wife Of Durgesh Singh Thakur All‘ ‘are resident of Jamatpara, Chuik‘had'an,‘ Tehsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P " I. HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WM Writ Petiu'on (227) No. 1801 of 2011 PETITIONER : Durgesh Singh Thakur Non-applicant VERSUS REsPONDENTS : Smt. Shashikala 85 others Applicants WRIT PETYI‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF‘ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. WWI, J‘l Present : Shri Abhishek Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ba§ant Kaiwaxtya, Advocate for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10.053011) 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heaJrl finally. 2. The instant petition Eed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 08.03.2011, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Link Court at Khahagarh, in case No. 180/07. 3. The trial court allowed the petitioner’s application for DNA V ’I‘est. i. 4' On 08.03.2011, since the petitioner was not present, the trial court closed petitioner’s opportunity for DNA Test and fixed the case for fmal arguments. 5‘ Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would subrnit although petitioner was attending the court regularly in almost all the hearings but on that date due to Collector‘s visit in his office he could not appear in the court and therefore the trial court was not right in disallowing F 3 petitionar’s prayer for adjournment and Older impugncd deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Kaiwartya, learned coun sel appearing for the respondents would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has rightly rejected the oral prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. Looking to every aspects of the matter and the fact that reason assigned ‘by the petitioner for his non appearance on the date of hearing appears to be bonafide, the trial court should have granted at—least one more opportunity to the petitioner for presenting himself before the court below for DNA Test. The respondents may have been compensated by imposing reasonable costs. In View of above, the order impugned dated 08.03.201 1, being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner for DNA Test subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to respondents and thereafter shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. 10. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. oo.o.W“ Sahu / Sdl- NJQ Agrawa‘ Judge