HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2141 of 2011 Date: September 09, 2011 Between: Guja Nagender … Petitioner And 1. Guja Shivamma & 2 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2141 of 2011 O R D E R: The plaintiff in O.S. No.53 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, filed an application in I.A. No.526 of 2010 therein seeking a direction from the Court below to defendants 1 and 2 to undergo DNA testing to find out whether defendant 2 was the daughter of defendant 1. The Court below, by order dated 31.3.2011, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is in revision before this Court. 2. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Smt. D. Pramada, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 3. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the Court below, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v . State of West Bengal and another[1], held that no person could be compelled to give his blood sample for analysis. Reference was also made to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka[2] in this regard. 4. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is that he was the adopted son of defendant 1 and her husband, late Pullaiah, and that he is entitled to a share in their properties. He accordingly sought partition thereof and allotment of his share. Defendant 1 disputed the plaintiff’s claim of adoption and stated that defendant 2 was her natural daughter. This led to the filing of the subject application. 5. Apart from the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to gather evidence by invasive and unconstitutional use of science and technology, he first had to prove his adoption, to lay a claim over the properties of defendant 1 and her late husband. At this stage of the suit, an application for DNA testing of the defendants did not lie, in any event. The order of the Court below holding to this effect therefore does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 09, 2011. BSB [1] AIR 1993 SC 2295 [2] AIR 2010 SC 1974