IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12172 of 2011 Nayanpati Devi Versus Kailash Prasad & Ors ----------- 03. 01.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by F.T.C. V, Siwan in title appeal no.24 of 2006 whereby the learned Appellate Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for D.N.A. test of respondent nos.1 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence of the petitioner in the partition suit is that the respondent no.1, Kailash Prasad is not the son of Nayan Prasad, the respondent no.3 through respondent no.2, Rajmati Devi and, therefore, it is necessary that D.N.A. test should be done to prove this fact. It appears that partition suit was filed by Kailash Prasad and Smt. Rajmati Devi who are respondent nos.1 and 2 herein claiming that Rajmati Devi is second wife of Nayan Prasad and Kailash Prasad is the son of Nayan Prasad. The petitioner disputed the fact that Rajmati is second wife and also denied that Kailash Prasad is son of Nayan Prasad. Nayan Prasad neither appeared nor contested the suit. The suit has been dismissed finding 2 that there is no joint property belonged to Nayan Prasad. Against the said judgment, the plaintiffs-respondents have filed this title appeal. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the father i.e. Nayan Prasad is not challenging the parentage of Kailash Prasad and, therefore, refused to allow the application filed by the petitioner. While refusing the prayer, the learned Court below has given reasons for not allowing the prayer. In view of the above facts, in my opinion, it is not a case that the learned Court below acted beyond his authority or it is a case of failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is generally exercised with a view to keep the inferior Court within their bounds or authority and to see that what their duty requires is done by them in legal manner. Here no such prayer was made by the petitioner in trial court and in appellate court she being respondent has filed this application. It cannot be said that the Court below passed the order in utter disregard of any law. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this application and accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)