IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21882 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.297/2002 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHANDAS, S/O.LATE MADHAVANANDAN, RESIDING AT MADHAVA VILASOM, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJAYAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT ANU BHAVAN, PARIPPALLI DESOM). BY ADVS. MR.N.SUKUMARAN, MR.S.SHYAM. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. MEENAKSHI, RESIDING AT THINAVILAKULATHUMKARA VEEDU, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM AND VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. 2. CHELLAMMA, W/O.LATE MADHAVANANADAN, MADHAVA VILASOM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE AND DESOM, ATTINGAL. 3. JOY PRASAD, S/O,.LATE MADHAVANANDAN, RESIDING AT DO..DO.. 4. JYOTHI ,D/O.LATE MADHAVANANDAN RESIDING AT DO..DO.. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21882 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P4 from the Munsiff Court, Attingal. ii) To quash Ext.P4 and allow the prayer in Ext.P2.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.297 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. Suit is one for partition, after declaring that a decree passed in an earlier suit is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants in the above suit. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application to direct the first defendant/first respondent to undergo a DNA test to prove his paternity as the son of one late Madhavanandan. The first respondent filed objections to that petition. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application by Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.21882 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P4 order and other materials tendered with the petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. The second respondent is the mother, and third and fourth respondents are the brothers of the petitioner. In a previous suit namely, O.S.No.5 of 84 filed by the first respondent as plaintiff claiming partition as legal heir of late Madhavanandan, in which second to fourth respondents were parties and that claim resisted by those respondents disputing the status of the first respondent as the son of late Madhavanandan, suit was decreed. The decree granted was challenged up to the Supreme Court, but, it was confirmed. Petitioner has filed the present suit after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court moved against the decree passed in the previous suit advancing a case that he was not a party in the previous suit and therefore not bound by the decree passed in that suit. Whatever be the merit of the suit claim so raised, the application moved by W.P.(C).No.21882 of 2009 - O 3 him for issuing direction to the first respondent to undergo DNA test to prove that he is the son of late Madhavanandan, which was so found in the previous suit, with his mother and brothers as defendants in the party array in the suit, was found not entertainable by the learned Munsiff, and so much so, the application moved for that purpose by the petitioner was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. Perusing Ext.P4 order and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the facts presented, I find this is not a fit case in which supervisory jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised to examine the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Without going into the merit of the case and taking note that there is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P4 order, I find the writ petition is not entertainable, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-