IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.178 of 2007 Dulhin Saraswati Devi, wife of Parash Nath Bharti, resident of Samahuta Mathia, P.S. Kachhawa, District Rohtas. …..Plaintiff-Petitioner versus 1. Ramawatar Upadhyay, son of late Basudeo Upadhyhay, resident of village Khairahi, P.S. Koransarai, District Buxar. …Defendant 1st set-Opp. Party 2. Mostt. Parmeshwari Devi, wife of late Basudeo Upadhyay. 3. Mostt. Lakhesari Devi, wife of late Bausdeo Upadhyay, both resident of village Khairahi, P.S. Koransarai, District Buxar. …Defendant 2nd set-Opp. Party. 4. Dulhin Bhagirathi Devi, wife of Upendra Goswami, resident of village Udiadih, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur. 5. Dulhin Asha Devi, wife of Ram Sharan Giri, resident of village Ghorahia, P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Gazipur. ..Defendant 3rd set-Opp. Party. ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate For Opp. Party no.1: Mr. Devi Das Srivastgava, Advocate. For other Opp. Parties: None. -------- 03/ 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 07.12.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge-II, Buxar, rejected her application for D.N.A. Test of her alleged mother (opposite party no.2) in order to establish that the plaintiff was her daughter in Title Suit No. 45 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration of her title to the extent of her share in the property detailed in the schedule of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff under section 151 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting the blood of defendant no.2 compared with the blood of the plaintiff through D.N.A. test for establishing that she was the daughter of defendant no.2. 4. The learned court below after considering the matter in detail rejected the said application by the impugned order holding that the settled principle of law is that the order for D.N.A. test should not be passed in routine manner, rather it should be passed in some very special circumstances only when on the evidence adduced by the parties the court is unable to decide the question of parentage. It is also a well-settled law that no one can be compelled to adduce evidence against her/his case and hence defendant no.2 cannot be legally compelled to give her blood for the said purpose. Furthermore, the evidence of the plaintiff has not yet concluded and the plaintiff has got even today full opportunity to lead her evidence in support of her claim. 5. 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )