[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmichand Chandrakar vs Durgeshwari on 2 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15434
Digitally signed
by ALOK
ALOK
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date:
2026.04.06
NAFR
10:55:36
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 385 of 2026
1 - Laxmichand Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Jagannath Chandrakar Aged
About 75 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Ward No.15, Besides
Old Mahila Nagrik Bank, Station Road Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Durgeshwari D/o Laxmichand Chandrakar W/o Mohit Kumar
Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years Housewife Resident Of House
Number 45, Behind The Mosque Near Santosh Temple Nayapara Ward
No 4, Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh,
2 - Dr. Mahendra Prasad S/o Laxichand Chandrakar Aged About 38
Years Ayurveda Medical Officer, Both Resident Of Pt. Ravishankar
Shukla Ward Ward No.15, Old Mahila Nagarik Bank Opposite Golcha
Electrical Station Road Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund
(Plaintiff)
3 - Naveen S/o Laxmichand Chandrakar Aged About 44 Years
Occupation Agriculture Ward No 8, Near Santoshi Temple Nayapara
Mahasamund Tah- District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Hall Address
Village Mongra Po. A Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
2
4 - Sandhya D/o Laxmichand Chandrakar W/o Raja Chandrakar
Occupation Agriculture Ward No 8, Near Santoshi Temple Nayapara
Mahasamund Tah- District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Hall Address
Village Mongra Po. A Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh (Defendant No 4)
5 - Meenu D/o Laxmichand Aged About 40 Years Husband Of Ashish
Chandrakar House Wife Resident Of Vani Lodge Near Railway Station
Durg Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No 5)
6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Mahasamund District-
Mahasamund (C.G.) (Defendant No 6)
7 - Smt Janki Chandrakar W/o Laxmichand Chandrakar Aged About 66
Years Caste- Kurmi R/o Ward No 13, Mahasamund Police Station Tehsil
And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Adhar No. 76351350525) (Defendant
No 7 )
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.
For State/ Respondent No.6. : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
02/04/2026
1. Heard.
2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated
07.08.2025 and 16.09.2025, whereby the application filed under
Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff for DNA test of the defendant
No.1 and herself was allowed and directed for drawing of the DNA
test sample. Further the application filed by the plaintiff for
constitution of a medical team for blood sampling for DNA test has
been rejected and directed the parties to appear before the Court
for DNA test sampling.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the civil
suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants' witnesses have been
examined, and the trial is at an advanced stage. The DNA test
cannot be ordered in a routine manner unless the circumstances
compel the same. The defendants have denied the paternity of
the plaintiff, which could be proved by the plaintiff by other
evidence. He further submits that the defendant is presently 75
years of age and semi-paralyzed and bedridden. The learned trial
Court has directed him to appear before the learned trial Court for
DNA sampling, but he is not able to appear before the trial Court.
Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. He further
submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record by
which the paternity of the plaintiff/defendant can be adjudicated;
yet, the learned trial Court, at the fag end of the trial, directed a
DNA test. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside, and
the application for conducting the DNA test filed by the plaintiff
may be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
5. From a perusal of the order dated 07.08.2025, it transpires that
the defendant has been examined as DW-1, and in para 20 of his
cross-examination, he admitted that he is ready for a DNA test.
Considering the admission made by the defendant, the learned
trial Court ordered a DNA test on 07.08.2025. Pursuant thereto,
another application was made by the plaintiff for constitution of a
team to collect the sample for the DNA test, however, the said
application filed by the plaintiff was rejected, and the parties were
directed to appear before the learned trial Court for sampling of
blood for the DNA test. When the defendant had given his consent
for the DNA test, he cannot now resile from his consent,
particularly when the DNA test has already been ordered in the
month of August, 2025. Although the parties have led their
evidence, the DNA test is one of the crucial modes to prove the
paternity of the child.
6. Further from the order dated 07.08.2025, by which the learned
trial Court ordered for DNA test considered the order passed by
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Tej Kumar vs.
Padmalochan and Others order dated 04.03.2025 passed in
WP227 No. 586 of 2022, directed for conducting the DNA test.
7. From perusal of both the orders dated 07.08.2025 and 16.09.2025
this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in passing the
order for DNA test. The submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the respondent is aged about 75 years and
semi-paralyzed and he is unable to walk, therefore, he could not
appear before the trial Court for DNA test and the blood sampling
for DNA test may be ordered to collect from his house.
8. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
appears to have some force.
9. Accordingly, though the present writ petition is dismissed on
merits, however, if the petitioner moved his application before the
learned trial Court for a direction to take the blood sample of the
petitioner for conducting DNA test at his residence, the same shall
be considered by the learned trial Court keeping in view his age,
physical condition and ailment in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok
