- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22219 W.P. No.13173/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13173/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHAMMA W/O LATE SRI. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE SRI. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE SRI. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT INDIRANAGAR NEXT TO GRAVEYARD NELAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK-562123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.K. SIDDESWARA, ADV.,) AND: 1. KUM. ROOPASHRI .R D/O LATE SRI. RAVIKUMAR GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. SUDHA W/O LATE SRI. RAVIKUMAR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22219 W.P. No.13173/2022 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. 2. SMT. SUDHA W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152 INDIRANAGARA, NELAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK-562123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KAMALADHAR G, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 R1 MINOR REP. BY R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.22.4.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.351/2015 ON IA NO.8 AS PER ANNEXUR-F BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. ALLOW THE I.A. NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10(A) CPC IN O.S.NO.351/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND NELAMANGALA & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2022 passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.351/2015 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (for short 'the trial Court'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22219 W.P. No.13173/2022 2. Heard Sri.N.K.Siddeswara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Kamaladhar G., learned counsel appearing for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondents filed OS.No.351/2015 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement denying the claims made in the suit, more specifically contending that late Sri.Ravikumar was a bachelor, that he never married plaintiff No.2 and that plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of late Sri.Ravikumar. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues. Issue No.3 reads as under: "Whether the defendants prove that, the plaintiffs are not the daughter and wife of Sri.Ravi Kumar?" 4. The petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking a direction to refer plaintiff No.1 to a DNA test to prove the paternity of the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22219 W.P. No.13173/2022 The affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that the deceased Sri.Ravikumar was a bachelor and that the claim of the plaintiffs regarding their status as wife and daughter is false. The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the application. It is to be noticed that a perusal of the affidavit does not indicate a prima facie case warranting a direction for a DNA test, nor does it specify the person with whom the DNA of plaintiff No.1 is sought to be compared. In the absence of such specific averments, the trial Court rightly concluded that the petitioners/defendants failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ordering a DNA test. 5. It is also to be noticed that the trial Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and concluded that a direction for a DNA test cannot be issued as a matter of routine. In the case on hand, the respondents/plaintiffs have placed sufficient material on record before the trial Court to substantiate their claim - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22219 W.P. No.13173/2022 with regard to their relationship with late Sri.Ravikumar and the relief sought in the plaint. The said documents have not been disproved by the petitioners/defendants so as to justify the ordering of a DNA test. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. It is trite law that the Court can order a DNA test only after the cogent and reliable evidence is lead to prove the illegitimacy and the same cannot be ordered as a matter of course. In the case on hand, nothing is placed to accept the prayer for a DNA test. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23