IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.412 of 2007 ---- Ram Bachan Rai son of Late Hari Lal Rai, Resident of Village-Mukundpur, P.S.-Simari, District-Buxar. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Kanhaiya Rai 2. Vijendra Rai Both sons of Late Chhathu Rai 3. Sitaram Rai 4. Veer Rai 5. Sri Bhagwan Rai Sons of Late Rajnath Rai 6. Most Jamuni Devi w/o Late Rajnath Rai 7. Lok Nath Rai son of Late Mukhlal Rai 8. Mahabir Rai 9. Sidhnath Rai Sons of Late Sukhdaya Rai 10. Musmat Kusumi Devi W/o Late Ganesh Rai 11. Bhim Rai 12. Nand Lal Rai 13. Jaglal Rai 14. Parash Rai 15. Ashok Rai Sons of Late Ganesh Rai 16. Ramdeo Rai son of Late Sukhnandan Rai All resident of Village-Mukundpur, P.S. Simari, District-Buxar. --Defendants 1st Party- Opposite Party 1st Set. 17. Most. Sheo Muni Devi W/o Late Keshwar Rai, resident of Village-Mukundpur, P.S.Simari, District-Buxar. 18. Bhagmati Devi W/O Amawas Rai D/O Late Keshwar Rai, Resident of Village-Bharauli, P.S. Nawanagar, District-Buxar. 19. Atwari Devi D/O Late Keshwar Rai 20. Sushila Kumari D/O Late Keshwar Rai. O.P.No.19 & 20, resident of Village-Mukundpur, P.S. Simari, District-Buxar. -- Defendants- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. 21. Satyanarain Rai 22. Jag Narayan Rai Both sons of Late Ram Bilash Rai 23. Most. Mahesiya S/O Late Ram Niwas Rai All resident of village-Mukundpur, P.S.-Simari, District-Buxar. -- Plaintiff-Opposite Party 3rd Set. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----- - 2 - 02. 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 22.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge, Buxar rejected his petition to get D.N.A Test of the plaintiff petitioner as well as Keshwar Rai or his descendants to ascertain as to whether they were descendants of the common ancestor Late Jiwdhan Rai in Title Suit No.68 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for partition of ½ share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared and contested the suit claiming that plaintiff was not descendant of Late Jiwdhan Rai. 4. However, during pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed the aforesaid petition for D.N.A.Test of the plaintiff as well as of Keshwar Rai and his descendants to ascertain the aforesaid fact. The said petition has been rejected by the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 22.12.2006. 5. The law is well settled in this regard that D.N.A. test should not be ordered in a routine manner and such cases have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the evidence Act by giving opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence on the said question. However, in very exceptional and deserving case in which the learned court below feels that without such test the matter could not be decided one way or the other, the court can use such methodology. 6. However, in the instant case, the learned court below - 3 - was very careful in considering the entire matter and has come to the conclusion that this case does not come within the purview of exceptional and deserving case and it has to be decided in a routine manner on the basis of evidence in accordance with specific provision of law. 7. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)