RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. RAMADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief:

(2.) PETITIONERS are the defendants 1 to 4 in OS No. 171 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit. Third respondent is the 5th defendant, and respondents 4 and 5, defendants 6 and 7 in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint property alleging they are the children of one late Narayanan, to whom the plaint property belonged, and one Devaki. Defendants 1 to 4, present petitioners, according to the plaintiffs, are the children of late Narayanan from his second wife, the 5th defendant/the present third respondent. Defendants 6 and 7/present respondents 4 and 5, are stated to be purchasers of the plaint property from defendants 1 to 5, petitioners and their mother, third respondent (5th defendant), the sale of which, according to the plaintiffs, is not binding on them. Defendants 1 to 5 have resisted the suit claim filing a written statement, in which among other contentions, they have disputed the paternity of the plaintiffs as the children of late Narayanan. Trial of the suit is in progress and among the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW 2 is stated to be the brother of late Narayanan. In view of the challenges raised against their paternity, plaintiffs have moved P1 application to have a DNA profile analysis of their blood samples with that of PW 2 and one among the defendants 1 to 4 at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, after collecting the blood samples from all of them and sending them over to the Institute for the analysis. The first defendant, on behalf of defendants 1 to 4, filed P2 counter-affidavit contending that they cannot be directed to give blood samples as that would amount to compelling them to be witnesses against themselves. The application was also challenged as highly belated, and filed with intend to delay the proceedings. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed P1 application vide P3 order. The plaintiffs were directed to produce an affidavit from PW 2 as to his willingness to give the blood sample for the analysis. Direction was issued to defendants 1 to 4 to give blood samples for profile analysis on receipt of report from the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Biotechnology, Trivandrum, where the analysis has to be conducted, as to the procedures and expenses to be incurred for such analysis. P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.