THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2262 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 2041 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1227 of 2006, praying to direct respondent No.1 to give her blood sample and send the same along with the blood sample of the petitioner for DNA test at CDFD, Naharam, Hyderabad or to any other approved Diagnostic Centre approved b6y the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 deliberately and with mala fide intention to defeat the case of the petitioner-plaintiff did not file counter and enter the witness box. Since D.W.1, in his evidence has denied that respondent No.1 is the daughter of late Ch. Nagireddy and sister of the petitioner, to prove that respondent No.1 is the sister of the petitioner born to Ch. Nagireddy, it is but necessary that respondent No.1 should be directed to give her blood sample for sending the same along with the sample of the petitioner for DNA test to CDFD, Narcharam or any other Diagnostic Centre recognized by Government of Andhra Pradesh, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for the said purpose. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The law is well settled that that DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine and mechanical manner, except in deserving cases. In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal[1], the apex Court laid down certain propositions of law about the permissibility of taking blood test to prove paternity, and they are - (1) The Courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course; (2) Whenever applications are made for such prayer in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained; (3) There must be a strong prima facie case, in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; (4) The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test: whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman; and (5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. Given the settled principles of law, governing the taking of blood samples for DNA test, it may be noticed whether the petitioner has made out any case for acceding to her request, and whether the Court below was unjustified in rejecting the present application filed by the petitioner, for taking the blood sample of defendant No.1 along with the blood sample of the petitioner, and sending them for DNA test. As can be seen from the order under revision, the defendants have taken a plea denying the relationship of the petitioner being the daughter of late Sri Nagireddy in the month of November, 2006 itself in their written statement. Though the petitioner contends that defendant No.1 did not file counter and enter into the witness box, the fact remains, defendant No.1 is very much alive, and if the petitioner wants to prove that defendant No.1 is her sister, she can summon defendant No.1 for evidence and prove her claim, but the petitioner instead of doing that has filed the present application. The petitioner has already let in substantial oral and documentary evidence to prove her claim for partition of the suit schedule property. The evidence of both the sides having been closed, the matter is coming up for arguments, and at this stage, the petitioner has filed the present application. This apart, the petitioner in support to prove her claim that defendant No.1 is her sister filed applications in I.A. Nos. 2040 of 2009 and 2042 of 2009 praying to receive documents and to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the photographs, which were allowed. That being so, and if according to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is her sister, I am of the considered opinion that she has the option of summoning her as a witness and speak about the relationship, but merely because respondent No.1 did not enter appearance and enter the witness box, and the defendants denied that respondent No.1 is not the daughter of late Ch. Narsireddy and sister of the petitioner, is no ground to order the taking of blood sample of respondent No.1 and send the same along with the sample of the petitioner, for DNA test. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly refused to allow the present application filed by the petitioner, by reason of the order under revision, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th June, 2010 KSR [1] AIR 1993 SC 2295