1 2026:CGHC:15434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 385 of 2026 1 - Laxmichand Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Jagannath Chandrakar Aged About 75 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Ward No.15, Besides Old Mahila Nagrik Bank, Station Road Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Durgeshwari D/o Laxmichand Chandrakar W/o Mohit Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years Housewife Resident Of House Number 45, Behind The Mosque Near Santosh Temple Nayapara Ward No 4, Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, 2 - Dr. Mahendra Prasad S/o Laxichand Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years Ayurveda Medical Officer, Both Resident Of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Ward Ward No.15, Old Mahila Nagarik Bank Opposite Golcha Electrical Station Road Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (Plaintiff) 3 - Naveen S/o Laxmichand Chandrakar Aged About 44 Years Occupation Agriculture Ward No 8, Near Santoshi Temple Nayapara Mahasamund Tah- District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Hall Address Village Mongra Po. A Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 10:55:36 +0530 2 4 - Sandhya D/o Laxmichand Chandrakar W/o Raja Chandrakar Occupation Agriculture Ward No 8, Near Santoshi Temple Nayapara Mahasamund Tah- District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Hall Address Village Mongra Po. A Mahasamund Tehsil And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Defendant No 4) 5 - Meenu D/o Laxmichand Aged About 40 Years Husband Of Ashish Chandrakar House Wife Resident Of Vani Lodge Near Railway Station Durg Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No 5) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Defendant No 6) 7 - Smt Janki Chandrakar W/o Laxmichand Chandrakar Aged About 66 Years Caste- Kurmi R/o Ward No 13, Mahasamund Police Station Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Adhar No. 76351350525) (Defendant No 7 ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For State/ Respondent No.6. : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 and 16.09.2025, whereby the application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff for DNA test of the defendant No.1 and herself was allowed and directed for drawing of the DNA 3 test sample. Further the application filed by the plaintiff for constitution of a medical team for blood sampling for DNA test has been rejected and directed the parties to appear before the Court for DNA test sampling. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the civil suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants’ witnesses have been examined, and the trial is at an advanced stage. The DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner unless the circumstances compel the same. The defendants have denied the paternity of the plaintiff, which could be proved by the plaintiff by other evidence. He further submits that the defendant is presently 75 years of age and semi-paralyzed and bedridden. The learned trial Court has directed him to appear before the learned trial Court for DNA sampling, but he is not able to appear before the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record by which the paternity of the plaintiff/defendant can be adjudicated; yet, the learned trial Court, at the fag end of the trial, directed a DNA test. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside, and the application for conducting the DNA test filed by the plaintiff may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 07.08.2025, it transpires that the defendant has been examined as DW-1, and in para 20 of his 4 cross-examination, he admitted that he is ready for a DNA test. Considering the admission made by the defendant, the learned trial Court ordered a DNA test on 07.08.2025. Pursuant thereto, another application was made by the plaintiff for constitution of a team to collect the sample for the DNA test, however, the said application filed by the plaintiff was rejected, and the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court for sampling of blood for the DNA test. When the defendant had given his consent for the DNA test, he cannot now resile from his consent, particularly when the DNA test has already been ordered in the month of August, 2025. Although the parties have led their evidence, the DNA test is one of the crucial modes to prove the paternity of the child. 6. Further from the order dated 07.08.2025, by which the learned trial Court ordered for DNA test considered the order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Tej Kumar vs. Padmalochan and Others order dated 04.03.2025 passed in WP227 No. 586 of 2022, directed for conducting the DNA test. 7. From perusal of both the orders dated 07.08.2025 and 16.09.2025 this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in passing the order for DNA test. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is aged about 75 years and semi-paralyzed and he is unable to walk, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court for DNA test and the blood sampling for DNA test may be ordered to collect from his house. 5 8. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force. 9. Accordingly, though the present writ petition is dismissed on merits, however, if the petitioner moved his application before the learned trial Court for a direction to take the blood sample of the petitioner for conducting DNA test at his residence, the same shall be considered by the learned trial Court keeping in view his age, physical condition and ailment in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok