Civil Revision No. 2656 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2656 of 2009 Date of decision : April 30, 2010 Darshan Kaur and another ....Petitioners versus Surjit Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. AS Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.4.2009, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sardulgarh thereby dismissing the plaintiffs' application for conducting DNA test of Parvinderjit Singh in order to establish his paternity. The petitioners are daughter-in-law and grand-daughter respectively of defendant respondent Surjit Singh whose son Pavinderjit Singh (husband and father of the petitioners) has since died. The petitioners have filed suit alleging suit land to be ancestral coparcenary Civil Revision No. 2656 of 2009 -2- property and claiming share therein. The defendant in written statement pleaded that in addition to Pavinderjit Singh since deceased, the defendant also has another son namely Parvinderjit Singh born in 2000. The petitioners moved application Annexure P/3 alleging that Parvinderjit Singh is not son of the defendant and therefore, DNA test be conducted to establish this fact. The application was opposed by the defendant. Learned trial court has dismissed the said application by impugned order which has been assailed in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent at the age of 65 years in the year 2000 could not have fathered a child and therefore, it is necessary to conduct DNA test of Parvinderjit Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that respondent in his written statement filed on 26.4.2004 specifically pleaded that Parvinderjit Singh is the son of the defendant and objection was also taken regarding non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit. However, the plaintiffs in spite of availing adjournments to file replication did not file any replication to controvert the said plea of the defendant and therefore, DNA test cannot be permitted at this stage. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Application Annexure P/3 was moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments and there is no explanation why the petitioners could not produce the proposed evidence in their affirmative Civil Revision No. 2656 of 2009 -3- evidence. There is also no pleading on behalf of the plaintiffs that Parvinderjit Singh is not son of defendant. The defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement that Parvinderjit Singh is his son. However, the plaintiffs did not file any replication. On the other hand, for the first time in application Annexure P/3 dated 18.3.2009, the plaintiffs alleged that Parvinderjit Singh is not son of defendant. Petitioners cannot be allowed to take this stand by way of interim application without pleading the said fact in pleadings. Moreover, the application was moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments. The application has, therefore, been rightly dismissed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'