34. We may highlight that as per the dicta of the Supreme Court noticed by the learned Single Judge also, a direction for DNA testing can be issued only after the test of eminent need is satisfied. The order dated 23rd December 2010 directed DNA testing of respondent no. 1 only after holding the said test to be satisfied in the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment though also holding that the test of eminent need is satisfied has declined to enforce the order. It is thus not as if the order for DNA testing is made or has been made in the present case on the asking or in a routine manner for the consequence only of adverse inference to flow from noncompliance thereof. We find inherent contradiction in the Court on the one hand holding eminent need for such a test and in the same breath allowing the need to remain unsatiated. We also find the drawing of adverse inference from refusal to comply with the direction for medical examination to be not sufficient to satiate the need found by the Court. A legal fiction under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, as adverse inference is, is not reality but which the said provision requires the Court to accept as reality. The Court is not bound to or obliged to draw such adverse inferences (see Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee, AIR 1943 FC 75, Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 and Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by LRs. v. Sita Ram, (2002) 1 SCC 741: AIR 2002 SC 433). A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for parties in whose favour it exists (see Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P., (1986) 2 SCC 486 ). As far back as in Damisetti Ramchendrudu v. Damisetti Janakiramanna, AIR 1920 PC 84 it was held that presumption
