Petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application for a DNA test in a suit for recovery where the respondent claimed to be his son. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding the Trial Court correct in relying on documents presuming paternity.
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.
Civil Revision No. 494 of 2014
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 494 of 2014 Date of Decision: 23.1.2014.
Raghuvinder Chattley alias Ghugi
.......Petitioner
Versus
Yagya
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2013 whereby application moved by the petitioner for issuing direction to the respondent to give blood sample for the purpose of DNA test, was dismissed.
Respondent has filed suit for recovery against the petitioner claiming himself to be son of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in basing reliance on the photocopies of the documents placed on record.
Trial Court while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for directing the respondent to give his blood sample for DNA test, has held as under:-
“There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition laid down in the aforementioned authorities. However, both these rulings are based upon distinguished facts then the present case. In the instant case although the respondent Raghwinder Chetly has denied paternity and has alleged that Smt. Aruna is not his legally wedded wife but at the
Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.24 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 494 of 2014
-2-
same time present petitioners have placed one copy of account No. 65397 opened by the respondent in the name of Yagya and in this account respondent shown as father of the minor child. It is further relevant to observe that this account was apparently opened by the respondent in favour of his minor child and other Photostat copy of Gurdev hospital has been placed on record where the name of the respondent mentioned as Husband of Ms. Aruna. Then another Photostat copy of birth certificate of the child would show that the name of respondent is reflected as father of minor child. Similarly another copy of affidavit attested by Executive Magistrate Mandi Gobindgarh dated 13.3.2000 would reflect the recital that respondent has admitted Ms. Prerna Chetly to be his daughter. ”
The reasons given by the Trial Court while dismissing the application, are sound reasons. As per the documents on record, petitioner himself had opened an account in favour of the respondent, as his minor child. Further, as per the affidavit dated 13.3.2000, Prerna Chattley was described as daughter of the petitioner.
In these circumstances, no ground for interference is
made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
January 23, 2014 Gurpreet
Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.24 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Trial Court's dismissal of an application seeking a DNA test when documents presume paternity.
Raghuvinder Chattley alias Ghugi
Yagya
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
