IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.69 of 2007 MOSTT.CHANDRAWATI DEVI Versus RAMASHANKAR PANDEY & ORS ----------- 02. 02.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 28.11.2006 in Title Suit No. 128 of 1995 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Buxar, rejected plaintiff-petitioner’s petition for D.N.A. test of plaintiff- petitioner and defendant-opposite party no.4 to compare the two so that it may be placed as an evidence. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for a decree of partition of her alleged 1/8th share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants-opposite parties appeared and contested the suit whereafter issues were framed, evidences of both parties were led and closed and the case was pending for arguments when a petition dated 10.08.2006 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for getting D.N.A. test of plaintiff- petitioner and the surviving mother, defendant no.5. Learned court below after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record specifically found that the court had earlier allowed the plaintiff-petitioner to get her D.N.A. test compared with Mostt. Rajeshwari Devi’s D.N.A. but the order could not be complied and in the meantime the said Rajeshwari Devi died and hence, the previous order of the court became infructuous. It was also held that so far the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner - 2 - regarding D.N.A. test is concerned, it was not proper in the present circumstances as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that D.N.A. test should not be ordered as a matter of routine and the parties should adduce other evidences for proving their respective claims. In the light of the said decision, the learned court below had come to a finding that there was no need to get the D.N.A. test compared for proving the case of the plaintiff-petitioner and hence, the petition was rejected. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)