PALANISAMY Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.08.2015 made in IA.No.836 of 2015 in IA.No.583 of 2010 in OS.No.193 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 1st Defendant is the Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The Plaintiff has filed IA.No.583 of 2010 for subjecting himself and the 1st Defendant to DNA test and the said application was closed on 22.10.2010, observing that after completion of the evidence on both sides, if it is not able to be established that the Plaintiff is not the son of the 1st Defendant, appropriate orders would be passed for paternity test in the said IA. The Plaintiff has filed the petition to reopen IA.No.583 of 2010 and pass necessary orders and the said petition was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved against the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st Defendant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to collect evidence through DNA test at the fag end of the trial and that the present application has been filed with a delay of 7 years, for which no valid explanation was given and that only to harass the Plaintiff, who is very old aged person, having bad health condition, the present application has been filed. The learned counsel has relied on ( Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy , 2015 1 SCC 365) and (Medida Veeraiah Vs. Meddida Vijaya Narasimha Rao,2018 CDJ 756APHC ).