Writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Civil Court order dismissing an application for a D.N.A. test in a partition suit. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding no infirmity existed in the lower court's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227U<Q^ OF 2012 PETITIONER Khilawan, S/o Dhanwar Sahu, aged about [Plaindff] 36 years, R/o village Sandi, Post Saldha, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sarwashri Thanwar, S/o Dhursingh @
Dhurraha, aged about 70 years;
2. Ferha @ Ramdhan, S/o Thanwar, aged
about 44 years;
3. Ramkumar, S/o Ramdhan Sahu, aged
about 20 years;
4. Ubheram, S/o Ramdhan Sahu, aged
about 18 years;
4^
,^-..""-
nNo..—-••••""—^";^^ly^^ All are agriculturists, R/o village
presented i»y»""•?••»••",—-^^Gadaghat,"(C.G.)Pas Khati, Tahsil Saja, District
Oated.....—--^H"c'("t"'t""::" Durg
^"
5. ^Ferhin Bai, W/o Bhikham Sahu, aged
about 47 years; R/o village Silora, Tahsil
Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)
6. •• Derhin Bai, D/o Thanwar, W/o Ajuram,
R/o village Belar, Tahsil Bemetara,
District Durg (C.G.)
7. y'- Dhaan Bai, W/o Manharan, aged about 45
years; R/o village Ranka, Pas Tipni, Tahsil
Saja, District Durg (C.G.)
WRIT£ETITIQNUNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
As given in the_csu->—
mGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.F227) No.694 of 2012
Petitioner Plaintiff
Khilawan
Versus
Respondents Defendants
Sarwashri Thanwar and others
ORDER
For Pronouncement of Order
'O .4.2013
Sd/-
N.K. Agarwal Judge
icP>.
y
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.("227~)No.694of2012
Petitioner Khilawan
(Plaintiff)
Versus
Respondents Sarwashri Thanwar aad others.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SB:- HON. SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J.
PRESENT:-
Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.l to 7. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No.8
ORDER
i. The plamtiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and for partition to the extent of 1/4 share in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he is son of respondent/defendant
No.l fi-om his wife Sonkunwar Bai and the suit property is ancestral property ofthe parties.
ii. Defendant No.l thrown out Sonkimwar Bai from matrimonial home at that time when she was pregnant. Later on, the plaintiffwas bom out ofthe wedlock.
iii. The claim was denied by defendant No.l, inter alia on the ground, that he is not father of the plaintiff - Khilawan but the father of Khilawan is one Sukhiram, whose name is also entered in the school register as father ofKhilawan.
iv. The trial Court framed issues. The plamtiff closed his evidence and thereafter defendants also examined some of their witnesses. At this statge, the application under Section 151 has been filed for conducting D.N.A. Test, that too, at the cost of respondents.
v. The application was opposed by fhe respondents. vi. The trial Court, having found the plaintiff is neither ready to bear expenses and had also filed the application when the plaintiffs evidence has already been closed and the defendants have also examined some oftheir witnesses and the circiunstances do not exist for conducting such test, dismissed the application. Hence, this petition.
J^SEB:?% /'£!"^% '^./ 1i..' (N.
' (1993)38cc 418 2 (2005) 4 SCC 449 3AIR2012Dettil51
A
l'3;-s^
''"i '?
S Sai-^ (•.•I
I X 1
1i,.''•••^.""'•^sySiy^'^•-.w&^-"' &_ ^.r'^/
the order impugned warranting interference of fhis Court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia.
Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Trial Court's dismissal of an application for a D.N.A. test filed at the stage of the trial.
Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or displayed perversity in refusing the D.N.A. test.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B.Relied on¶43
Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B.
Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (Mrs)Relied on¶43
Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (Mrs) and another
Rohit v. N.D.TiwariRelied on¶45
Rohit v. N.D.Tiwari and anothers
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Khilawan
Sarwashri Thanwar
Ferha @ Ramdhan
Ramkumar
Ubheram
Ferhin Bai
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
