2025:HHC:28237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 218 of 2025 Decided on : 20.08.2025 Ram Padam …Petitioner Versus Prabhu Lal and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priti Steta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 5.5.2025 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in C.M.A. No. 55/2025 titled Ram Padam Vs Prabhu Lal may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28237 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.05.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, in CMA No. 55/2025, titled Ram Padam Vs. Prabhu Lal & anr., in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 75(E) read with Order XXVI, Rule 10(A) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), further read with Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge. 4. In terms of the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner with the prayer that defendant No.1 be directed to appear before the Medical Officer to give sample of blood or any other part of the body for DNA examination, has been rejected. 5. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration against the defendant to the effect that he is the son of defendant, being born from the womb of proforma defendant from the loins 3 2025:HHC:28237 of defendant No.1. Consequential relief of injunction as stated in the plaint, has also been prayed. During the pendency of this suit, the application was filed by the petitioner with the prayer that to settle the matter once and forever as to whether the defendant was the biological father of the petitioner or not, let DNA test of the defendant be conducted. Learned Trial Court has dismissed this application by returning the following findings:- “9. In the present case, the applicant/plaintiff was 60 years old when he filed this suit. The respondent was 86 years old at that time. The main suit appears to be barred by limitation as ideally the suit should have been filed 3 years after the applicant/plaintiff attained the age of majority. On his part, the applicant/plaintiff has projected in the plaint that the expenses for his education were borne by the respondent/defendant no.1 and there was no dispute regarding his paternity but the dispute arose after 25.11.2019 when the respondent/defendant no.1 executed the settlement deed in favour of his son Subhash Chand. 10. This implies that the applicant/plaintiff contends that the respondent/defendant no.1 denied proprietary rights to him and thereby refused to acknowledge him as his son. 4 2025:HHC:28237 11. Even if the claim of applicant/plaintiff is admitted that he is the biological son of respondent/defendant no.1, still, as per the Customary Law, the applicant/plaintiff would at most entitled be to maintenance from the respondent/defendant no.1, however, he would not have any right to challenge the settlement deed executed by the respondent/defendant no.1. 12. Even the right to claim maintenance is not certain because it is the pleaded case of applicant/plaintiff that he retired as a Foreman from Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. 13. Therefore, there are serious doubts regarding the accrual of cause of action to the applicant/plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint and the main suit also appears to be time barred. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the applicant/plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case in his favour, therefore, his application for DNA test of respondent/defendant no.1 can not be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. However, it is clarified that observations made herein are strictly for the disposal of this application and it shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. 5 2025:HHC:28237 16. Application stands disposed off. Be registered and tagged with the main case file for record.” 6. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court call for no interference. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff was 60 years old when he filed the suit and the defendant was 86 years old. Not only this, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ivan Rathinam versus Milan Joseph, 2025 INSC 115, has been pleased to hold that forcible undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual's private life to scrutiny from the outside world. That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person's reputation and standing in society. It can irreversibly affect a person's social and professional life, along with his mental health. On account of this, a person has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test. 7. In the present case, the defendant has refused to give his DNA test. In the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been 6 2025:HHC:28237 further pleased to hold that while dealing with the eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, the Court balances the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test and that first and foremost the Court must, therefore, consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that if that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding only then should the Court consider ordering a DNA test. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there are two blockades to ordering a DNA test, one, insufficiency of evidence and a positive finding regarding the balance of interest. 8. In the present case, the petitioner before the Court is not a minor or a young man. He is a 60 year old man, who now has approached the Curt seeking a declaration that the defendant was his father. Embarrassing an 86 years old man by ordering him to undergo a DNA test to ascertain as to whether the allegation of the plaintiff was correct or incorrect, obviously, cannot be said to be a positive finding regarding the balance of interest. Further, the order would be harsh and 7 2025:HHC:28237 obviously would eviscerate the reputation of the defendant and his standing in the society at this age of his life. 9. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, as this Court finds no infirmity in order dated 05.05.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, in CMA No. 55/2025, titled Ram Padam Vs. Prabhu Lal & anr., in terms whereof, the application of the present petitioner was dismissed, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 20, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)