It is not proper to debar the petitioner from bringing any kind of scientific evidence on record. But it is also true that a defendant can not be compelled to undergo a DNA test against his will. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi in the matter of Shezad & Anr vs Shareef[CIVIL REVISION No. – 153 of 2019] on 12.11.2021.
The facts of the case were that an application 81(C) was moved by the plaintiff under Section 151 and Order 18 Rule IV C.P.C. by the plaintiff(here respondent) alleging that he and defendant no 2 were the sole legal heir of Md. Haneef and defendant no 1 was not the son of defendant no.2 Smt. Baano is the son of her brother Mohd. Usman and thereby nephew of defendant no.2. And this fact can be made clear by a DNA Test.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that “the point in issue in the original suit is whether the defendant no.2 is the real son of deceased Mohd. Haneef and his legal representative and has the right, title, or interest in the disputed property or not. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case and in support of his case, he wants to produce one sort of evidence that is scientific in nature. So it will not be proper to debar him from bringing such evidence on record. It is true that a person cannot be compelled to undergo a D.N.A. test which can be conducted only on the willingness of the concerned person. So it is for the defendants to decide whether they should go for the D.N.A. test or not. If they decline to go for the D.N.A. test, Section 114 of the Evidence Act may apply.”
Finally, the Hon’ble High court held that the impugned judgment is just and proper, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Further, the Hon’ble High court also stated that the revisionist is at liberty to comply or disregard the impugned judgment. However, in case of non-compliance, the allegations may be determined by the concerned Court by drawing presumption of the nature contemplated in Section 114 of the Evidence Act and also the other evidence available on record.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur