- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34830 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBBANAIKA @ SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE DEVANAIKA R/A DODDA BEEDHI, KALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K N MAHESH AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ NANJANAIKA R/A DODDA BEEDHI, KALALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O CHIKKAHONNANAIKA D/O LATE ANKANAIKA @ ANKANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI ANKANNA S/O LATE ANKANAIKA @ ANKANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.2 AND RESPONDENT NO.3 ARE R/AT SINDHUVALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118. 4. SMT KUMARI D/O LATE ANKANAIKA @ ANKANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. SRI MANJU S/O LATE ANKANAIKA @ ANKANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5 ARE R/AT DODDA BEEDHI KALALE VILAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571118 6. SRI DODDACHIKKANAIKA S/O LATE SUBBANAIKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. SRI SRI SUBBANAIKA S/O LATE SUBBANAIKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.6 AND RESPONDENT NO.7 ARE R/AT DODDA BEEDHI KALALE VILAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571118 8. SMT ANKAMMA W/O MADANAIKA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 D/O LATE DEVANAIKA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A SINDHUVALLIL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGAUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571118 9. SMT CHIKKADEVAMMA D/O LATE DEVANAIKA W/O MAHADEVANAIKA AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NAYAKARA BEEDHI HEGGOTARE VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313 …RESPONDENTS *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER XXVI RULES 10 AND 10-A OF CPC R/W ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN R.A.NO.6/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANAGUD, PRODUCED AT ANNX-A, ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the respondents in R.A.No.6/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud (for short “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the said application filed by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 the appellant (respondent No.1 herein) under Order XXVI Rule 10 and 10-A CPC for a direction to the parties to appear before the Court Commissioner for the purpose of conducting DNA profiling test was allowed by the First Appellate Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.124/2011 against the petitioner-defendant No.3 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, plaintiff contended that he was the son of one Late Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Mallamma and that the said Nanjappa was one of the children of Devanaika and Madamma. It is contended that the petitioner-defendant No.3 in the suit was the son of the aforesaid Devanaika, whose wife was defendant No.1 and the remaining defendants were their family members. The plaintiff contended that he constituted a Hindu undivided family along with the defendants and the suit schedule properties were joint family - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 properties and since the defendants did not comply with the requests of the plaintiff to effect partition and division of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff filed the instant suit. 4. The petitioner and other defendants filed their written statement inter alia disputing and denying the allegations and claim made by the plaintiff and specifically contended that the plaintiff was not related to the defendants as contended by him. The defendants disputed and denied the alleged relationship of the plaintiff with Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and specifically contended that the said Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was married to one Chikkadevamma @ Nagamma and they did not have any issues. The defendants also disputed that the plaintiff was the son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Mallamma as falsely alleged by him and as such, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed six issues and one additional issue relating to valuation and Court fee, amongst which issue No.1 is as under: “Whether plaintiff proves that he is the son of Late Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and that he himself together with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 defendants constitute members of joint family and the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties?” 6. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish his alleged relationship with Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika, as a result of which the plaintiff had also failed to prove that he was related to the defendants and consequently, answered issue No.1 in the negative against the plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by him by passing the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2021. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent No.1/plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2022, which is pending adjudication. In the said appeal, apart from assailing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, respondent No.1 filed the instant application, I.A.No.6 seeking conducting of a DNA profiling test for the purpose of elucidating the issues in controversy between the parties. Respondent No.1 inter alia contended that since the defendants had admitted that they were the wife, children and other family members of Devanaika, father of Late. Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika, whose relationship with the said Devanaika had not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 been disputed by the defendants, it was necessary to conduct a DNA profiling test of both plaintiff and defendants in order to ascertain as to whether the plaintiff was the son of Late Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and grandson of Devanaika, whose wife was defendant No.1 and the remaining defendants were his family members. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner and other defendants, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ordering DNA test cannot be permitted as a matter of course and in the absence of any evidence to establish that the plaintiff was a son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika, who did not have any access with Mallamma, alleged mother of plaintiff, the First Appellate Court committed an error in directing DNA profiling test by passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Hareesh @ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 Harishkumar Vs. Sri. A.S. Umesh and others – W.P.No.20342/2025 dated 01.09.2025. 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as stated supra, issue No.1 framed by the Trial Court dealt with the question as to whether the plaintiff was the son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika, who was undisputedly was the son of Devanaika. It is also an undisputed fact as admitted by the defendants themselves that they are the wife, children and family members of Late Devanaika and also that the said Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was one of the children of Late Devanaika. As stated earlier, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Mallamma and consequently, since the plaintiff was not a member of the alleged joint family of Devanaika and Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and was a stranger to the said joint family, the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties and as such, answered issue No.1 against the plaintiff by holding that he had failed to prove his alleged relationship with Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and the defendants and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the suit. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the First Appellate Court has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record and the rival contentions as regards the alleged relationship of the plaintiff with Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and the defendants and has recorded a correct finding that DNA profiling test was necessary to elucidate the issue in controversy between the parties as regards the alleged relationship of the plaintiff with Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and the defendants, which was directly and substantially in issue between the parties requiring DNA profiling test to be conducted in this regard. While arriving at the said conclusion, the First Appellate Court held as under: “ORDERS ON I.A.VI FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULES 10 & 10-A OF CPC R/W ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC The appellant/ plaintiff filed this application to direct the appellant and the respondents i.e., plaintiff and defendants in the original suit to appear before the Commissioner appointed by this court to draw blood to be referred to the Forensic Laboratory, Bengaluru to conduct the D.N.A. profiling test and to submit the report. 2. In the affidavit it is sworn that, plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession. The matter was contested disputing the relationship of the appellant/ plaintiff with the defendants/ respondents. But unfortunately the matter was dismissed by the Trial Court, finding that the biological relationship of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 the plaintiff with the defendants is not proved. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff preferred this appeal. In fact there are many overt and covert admissions with regard to the birth of the plaintiff and origin connecting to the defendants biologically including that of a couple of documents that cannot be disputed that are marked in the evidence of the plaintiff’s side. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for partition and separate possession. Just because of the fate’s cruel mischief played in the life of plaintiff, the plaintiff subjected to such harassment and indignation refuting his origin that is an affront to his mother also, as heaped upon the plaintiff by the defendants. It is further sworn that the proposed DNA test by an expert from the approved Forensic Laboratory is very essential and imperative to prove his origin and succession, but also to highlight and prove his mother’s dignity as well. The defendants cannot refuse or deny to co-operate with the order of this court in this regard if they are honest and true in their allegations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had tried everything possible before arriving at the last and final course of action to prove his contention linking him to the defendant’s family biologically and this is the only way that is not only scientific but also fool- proof. It is also submitted that, if the application is allowed no loss, hardship or injury will be caused to the defendants and on the other hand if the application is not allowed the plaintiff will be put to greater loss, hardship and injury that cannot be compensated in terms of money and it will avoid him to get - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 legitimate share in the suit schedule property if he is entitled. Therefore, he prays to allow the application. 3. Per contra, the respondents No.1 and 2 have filedobjection stating that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The application is filed at the stage of appeal and at the same time there was no pleading or prayer or application for DNA test in the Trial Court. The scope of enquiry in the appeal is limited to reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. In special circumstances, the appellate court may allow the parties to file additional documents, which the parties could not file at the trial stage. The appellate Court has not got the power to order for D.N.A. test. D.N.A. test is not a right of the party and it cannot be ordered against the consent of the parties. There is no suggestion during the evidence about the D.N.A. test. The appellant remains silent not only during the evidence in the Trial Court but also remains silent nearly two years before this court. So, respondents No.1 and 2 prayed to reject the application. 4. Heard. Perused pleadings and materials placed on record. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellant / plaintiff has made out suitable grounds for order to direct the respondents/defendants to assist to draw blood sample to prove the biological relationship between the plaintiff and defendants? 2. What order ? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 5. The above points are answered as follows :- Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:- R E A S O N S 6. Point No.1 :- O.S.124/2011 was filed before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession. The first issue of that suit is, “whether plaintiff proves that he is the son of late Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and that he himself together with defendants constitute members of joint family and that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties?” For which the Trial Court has discussed in page No.24 of its judgment that, “But the defendants have seriously disputed that plaintiff is not the son of late Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika. They have totally denied the plaint averment that plaintiff is son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Mallamma. It is their specific contention that Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was married to one Nagamma @ Chikkarangamma and they were issueless. They also denied that they brought up plaintiff till he was 15 years old. They contend that plaintiff is no way related to them and he is a stranger.” So, the reading of plaint averments and judgment of the Trial Court show that the defendants have continuously disputed the relationship of the plaintiff. The Trial Court negatively answered to issue No.1 and finally opined that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the relationship with the defendants. The reading of the judgment of the Trial Court shows that, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 relationship with the defendants. The reading of the averments of the written statement and judgment of the Trial Court further go to show that the defendants have not denied the nature of the schedule property as ancestral property, but they have seriously objected the relationship stating that the plaintiff has utterly stranger to their family. 7. Now the question arises that, whether this court being the Appellate Court can facilitate the plaintiff to furnish additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that, the jurisdiction of this court to collect the evidence is very narrow. However, it may be said that, the First Appellate Court got every power of trial i.e., Trial Court, because as per the Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C. the Appellate Court can collect oral evidence, whereas Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. provides Appellate Court to get additional evidence, whether oral or documentary. So, Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of C.P.C. are the area by which the Appellate Court can collect evidence just like Trial Court. So, the First Appellate Court is designated as fact finding and law finding court. So, the First Appellate Court requires special care and attention, because the First Appellate Court should discuss the evidence in detail. The said principle of law has been held in the case of Leela K.Pansare and others Vs. B.B.Ithape reported in AIR 2014 SC 2867 in para Nos.5 and 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shasidhar Vs. A.U. Mathad reported in AIR 2015 SC 1139 discussed very lengthily explaining that every court has duty bound to examine the nature of the property and co-related facts in partition suit. So, finally the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 that case held that, “Being the first appellate Court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC.” So, there is no scope in the objection raised by the respondents No.1 and 2 on the question that the First Appellate Court has got very limited power to collect limited evidence, because the First Appellate Court has got very wide power just like Trial Court to collect additional oral and documentary evidence as per Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of C.P.C. So, the objection raised by the respondents No.1 and 2 in this regard has to be rejected. So, the objection mentioned in para No.3 will lose its weight. 8. Now the respondents further set up defence that D.N.A. test is not a right of party, it cannot be ordered against the consent of the parties. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents relies the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in Civil Appeal No.6153/2021 in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others. The said case was also to decide the relationship of the parties. So, the ambit and scope of D.N.A. test has been broadly discussed. In that case, the defendants/applicants for conducting D.N.A. Test for the plaintiff was disposed by the Trial Court in C.S.No.53/2013 for declaration of ownership of property, left behind by late Trilok Chand Gupta and late Sona Devi. Where the defendants have denied that the plaintiff is the son of their parents. Since the plaintiff of that case has refused to give D.N.A. sample the view taken that the court cannot force the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 plaintiff to provide D.N.A. sample and according to the defendants the application came to be dismissed. Finally the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “It cannot be overlooked that in the present case, the application to subject the Plaintiff to a DNA Test is in a declaratory suit and the plaintiff has already adduced evidence and is not interested to produce additional evidence (DNA), to prove his case. It is now the turn of the defendants to adduce their evidence. At this stage, they are asking for subjecting the plaintiff to a DNA test. Questioning the timing of the application the trial Court dismissed the defendants application and we feel that it was the correct order.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considering the timing and filing application in the different nature of suit for declaration and ownership was dismissed. So, the learned counsel for the respondents herein taking shelter of this judgment argued to reject the application. However, it is the humble opinion of this court that, the nature of that case and present case are not one and the same, because the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided the role of D.N.A. test in the declaratory suit, whereas the present applicant has filed the suit for partition and separate possession before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that timing of filing of this application is very late, because it is filed at belated stage. However, it may be said that, the first issue in the original suit to prove the relationship of the plaintiff with the defendants. Now the question arises that whether the privacy of the defendants will be effected, if order is passed to draw blood sample for D.N.A. test. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 9. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant relies the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. 2523/2007 in the case of Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs. Anjinappa and others. The Hon'ble High Court has framed three points for discussion, among these, second one was to decide the scope of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to direct the respondent No.1(b) and respondent No.2 to submit their blood samples for conducting an Avuncular DNA profiling with that of appellant. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka answered in favour of the applicant of that R.S.A. directing the respondents to submit their blood samples to draw D.N.A. to establish the relationship. While discussing, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that suppose direction is issued against the respondents to submit their blood sample to draw D.N.A. Test would not violate their privacy, because the purpose of blood sample to determination of the relationship of the plaintiff and his share upon the disputed property. While discussing the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also taken consideration of the judgment decided in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia’s case, it was taken note while discussing the consideration of DNA test in the Writ Petition which has been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka only. Finally the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka opined that, suppose direction is issued against the defendants to submit their blood samples definitely would not violate their privacy and fundamental rights. The respect to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as above referred it may be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 said that the suit of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was for partition and separate possession. As mentioned supra, there is no dispute by the defendants about the nature of the suit property, but their dispute that the plaintiff is very stranger to their family. Suppose the plaintiff is the family member of the defendants, he will have right to claim share upon the suit schedule property. Mere denial of application definitely cause unbearable hardship to the plaintiff, because it would amount to reject the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. So, the defendants are permitted to submit their blood samples for D.N.A. profiling test would not violate their private right or privacy, whereas suppose the relationship is proved through D.N.A. test, it will help to answer the very crucial question of relationship between the parties. So, ultimately the opinion of this court that, the order by way of direction to the defendants to draw blood sample for D.N.A. Profiling Test is definitely correct way of collecting evidence to determine the very complex question of relationship. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 10. Point No.2:- In view of the findings on the above point, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER I.A.VI filed by the appellant under Order XXVI Rule 10 and 10-A of C.P.C. r/w Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. is allowed. In view of the above order, the plaintiff is hereby directed to mention the name of one of the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 defendants from whom the blood samples is to be drawn and by whom the proposed samples to be collected.” 10. In my considered opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, in particular, the undisputed fact as admitted by the defendants themselves that they were the wife, children and family members of Late Devanaika as also the fact that Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was the son of said Devanaika, the issue/question as to whether the plaintiff was the son of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Mallamma as contended by him or whether the said Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was married to Chikkarangamma @ Nagamma and both of them died issueless as contended by the defendants would clearly necessitate/warrant/require DNA profiling test for the purpose of resolving the said question, which had a direct and substantial bearing /impact on the final outcome of the appeal and for the purpose of its adjudication by the First Appellate Court. It is also relevant to state that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner-defendant No.3 if DNA profiling test was conducted especially when he would be entitled to file his objections to the test report and examine/cross-examine the Court Commissioner, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 who conducted DNA test if the petitioner so desired, in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the persent petition. 11. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Hareesh (supra) is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment will indicate that in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the said case, this Court came to the conclusion that since there was a presumption regarding paternity in the light of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, DNA profiling test was not required to be conducted/done by the Court; in the case on hand, since both Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika and Late Mallamma had expired long back, coupled with the specific contention of the defendants that Mallamma was not the wife of Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika nor was the plaintiff their son and instead the said Nanjappa @ Nanjanaika was actually married to Chikkarangamma @ Nagamma, the provisions contained in Section 112 of the Evidence Act was not applicable to the facts of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:43 WP No. 34830 of 2025 the instant case and consequently, no reliance can be placed upon the said judgment by the petitioner in support of his contentions. 12. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV/BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21: CT-SG