IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22263 of 2011 Amrawati Devi Versus Usha Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 15.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.2 petitioner against the order dated 13.6.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge 5th Ara Bhojpur in Title Suit No. 325 of 1996 whereby the learned court below held that at this stage the prayer of the defendant No.2 cannot be allowed and directed the petitioner to pray the same relief after evidence of both the parties is closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana and submitted that there is no harm in directing for DNA test because the petitioner is challenging paternity of the plaintiff respondent. From perusal of the decision relied upon by the petitioner it appears that the Apex Court was considering the provisions of Cr.P.C. and it was a case of 376 IPC. In my opinion, therefore, the principles laid down in that case is not applicable in the present case. By the impugned order only court below has stated that the petitioner may approach after conclusion of the 2 evidence. It may be mentioned here that there is specific provision in the Evidence Act that is Section 50 and Section 60 regarding proof of paternity by adducing evidence and, therefore, rightly the learned court below has not interfered with at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as such this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)