(2nd defendant), he has admitted that he has no objection for DNA test being conducted and having elicited such an answer from DW.1, the plaintiff has filed the present application for conducting DNA test to establish that plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 Learned counsel further contends that DW.1 in the witness box has admitted, agreed and consented for conducting the DNA test and that being so, the question of denying such a test is not just and fair and therefore the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. In order to ascertain whether the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1/Poovappa, trial Court ought to have allowed the application for conducting DNA test. He further contends that merely because the defendant No.1 has died cannot be a ground for rejection of the application as by allowing the application, the lis between the parties with regard to the relationship as to whether plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1/Poovappa would be decided. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the writ petition and consequently set aside the order passed by the trial Court by allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for conducting DNA test to ascertain the
