THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2615 OF 2010 DATED: 31-03-2011. Between 1.M.Yerrayamma and another … Petitioners-Defendants And M.Srinivasa Rao …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2615 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 26-04-2010, in I.A.No.103 of 2010 in O.S.No.29 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to accord permission to the petitioners herein (defendants) to undergo DNA test for determination of maternity between the 2nd defendant and 1st defendant, was dismissed. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that as per the plaint averments the 2nd defendant is not born to the 1st defendant through her husband Malireddy China Muthayya and that the 2nd defendant is the daughter of Kannuru Mutyala Naidu and Pallemma. It is stated by the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant is her daughter and she gave birth to 2nd defendant through her legally wedded husband, who died intestate leaving behind her and the 2nd defendant as his legal heirs to his estate. The said application was dismissed on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. 3. The case of the petitioners-defendants in the trial Court is that the 1st defendant is the wife and 2nd defendant is the daughter of one late China Muthayya, who died intestate and therefore, they are entitled to succeed in the properties of the deceased. Whereas, the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that China Muthayya during his life time, executed a will and by virtue of the will, he succeeded to the estate of the deceased and that in spite of taking a plea by the petitioners in the written statement, which was filed in the year 2007, no steps have been taken to file the application and it was filed at a belated stage and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. 4. Heard both the counsel. 5. A plea has been taken by the respondent-plaintiff that the 2nd defendant is not the daughter of 1st defendant and China Muthayya and she is the daughter of one Mutyala Naidu and Pallemma and that 1st defendant is the divorced wife of China Muthayya. Therefore, when a specific plea has been taken by the respondent-plaintiff, it is for him to establish the same. For the purpose of proving the case of the plaintiff, the defendants can as well adduce evidence to disprove the contention raised by the plaintiff. The entire evidence was completed and the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were over and the matter is coming up for defendants’ side arguments. At that stage, the present application was filed. No reason was assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application as to why such an application has not been filed after filing of the written statement. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 31-03-2011 Hsd