IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.47301/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SABHIR @ DADE AHAMED S/O SRI SADIQ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS FRIENDS ANTO ELECTRICIAN NEW SANTHE ROAD TIPPU NAGAR, CHANNAGIRI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 213 2. SMT. REHAMATHUNNISA W/O SADIQ MAJOR R/AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 213 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI SADIQ S/O DADE AHAMED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT OLD SYED MOHALLA CHANNAGIRI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 213 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.68/2009 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by the plaintiffs and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 03.09.2014 passed in the suit in O.S.No.68/2009 whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC for ordering DNA test.
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the son of the respondent/defendant and petitioner No.2 claims to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent/defendant.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the writ petition relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [(2015) 1 SCC 365]. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in support of the impugned order relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women [(2010) 8 SCC 633].
5. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is appropriate for the trial Court to reexamine the matter in the light of the aforesaid two Supreme Court decisions. Hence, I make the following order:
The impugned order dated 03.09.2014 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
6. As the suit is of the year 2009, the trial Court is also directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any event within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by strictly avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR