Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh Baghel vs Niranjan Singh Baghel on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15194
1 MP-3666-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3666 of 2025
JITENDRA SINGH BAGHEL
Versus
NIRANJAN SINGH BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.4/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
"It is humbly prayed that petition may kindly be allowed by setting
aside the order Anenxure P/1 and application filed by petitioner
may kindly be allowed. Any other relief may kindly be granted in
the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned trial Court has rejected the application of plaintiff/petitioner in
respect of conducting DNA test. Since the plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for
declaration and injunction against defendants No.1 to 4, claiming that
defendant No.1 is his father and he is the son of defendant No.1 Niranjan
Singh and first wife of Niranjan Singh, Ramsiya bai. Savitribai has been
died, but Ramsiya is alive. In written statement, defendants have denied the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15194
2 MP-3666-2025
factum that plaintiff Jitendra Singh Baghel is the son of defendant No.1
Niranjan Singh and there is an issue of paternity. The suit is in respect of the
parental property, hence, this issue cannot be decided without there being
any DNA test in respect thereof. He requests for setting aside the impugned
order and to allow his application for conducting DNA test in respect of
plaintiff and respondent No.1 only. He relied upon a judgment of Madras
High Court in case of Palanisamy Vs. Vijayakumar & Others reported in
2021 1 LW 471.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner of Madras High Court
in the case of Palanisamy (supra) , the important paragraph 13 is reproduced
as under:-
"13. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in the above said cases to the case on hand, since the
paternity of plaintiff herein is disputed by the 1st Defendant
herein, it becomes necessary to decide whether the Plaintiff is the
son of the 1st Defendant or not, for which DNA test is essential.
In view of the scientific technology, the result of DNA test will
assist the Court in deciding the whole issue properly. However,
liberty is given to the 1st Defendant to comply with or disregard
the impugned order passed by the Court below, requiring the
parties to undergo the DNA test. In case, the 1st Defendant
accepts the direction issued by the court below, the DNA test will
determine conclusively the issue of paternity in one way or the
other. In case, the 1st Defendant declines to comply with the
direction issued by the court below, the allegation would be
determined by the concerned Court, by drawing a presumption of
the nature contemplated in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act, especially, in terms of illustration (h)."
4. It is revealed that the application dated 12.09.2024 for conducting
DNA test of plaintiff and respondent No.1 has not been opposed by the
defendants. They orally opposed the application before the learned trial
Court. The learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15194
3 MP-3666-2025
plaintiff or any other party to the case has not raised any issue regarding the
paternity of plaintiff and since there is a mention in the application of DNA
Act, however, there is no such Act is in existence.
5. It is trite that the mention of wrong provision in an application may
not be a basis for rejecting the application. The recital of application is
important, and according to which, the Court has to decide the application.
His pleadings and written statement show that there is an issue of paternity
of plaintiff and the plaint has been filed in respect of the paternity property,
therefore, this issue cannot be decided without conducting DNA test of
plaintiff Jitendra and defendant No.1 Niranjan. Having considered the law
laid down in case of Palanisamy (supra) , the application ought to be allowed.
6 . Therefore, the application in respect of DNA test of plaintiff and
respondent No.1 only is hereby allowed. The trial Court is directed to
proceed further in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed in limine and
disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
