Bombay High Court
WP/8685/2022 of ANANDA RANGRAO BHUI (SHINDE) AND ORS. Vs ANNAPURNA RAJU BHOI AND ANR. on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2022 Ananda Rangrao Bhui (shinde) And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Annapurna Raju Bhoi And Anr. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Nikhil Pawar a /w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2022 Ananda Rangrao Bhui (shinde) And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Annapurna Raju Bhoi And Anr. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Nikhil Pawar a/w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate for Petitioners. Adv. Anand S. Patil (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Soham V. Powar, Advocate for Respondents. …..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. : The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioners take exception to the order dated 15.02.2021 passed below Exhibit-32 in RCS No.401 of 2020, rejecting the application to compel respondent to undergo a DNA test.
4. The respondents have preferred RCS No.401 of 2020 for partition and possession. The petitioners contested the suit on various grounds. Petitioner No.1 disputed any marital relationship with respondent No.2 ZIP
and the paternity of respondent No.1. The parties have rival claims regarding their marital status.
5. The respondents resorted to an application at Exhibit-32 seeking a direction to petitioner No.1 to undergo a DNA test, which is rejected by the impugned order. The application was preferred before the commencement of the evidence in the suit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that now the recording of evidence has commenced and the application is rejected considering the advanced stage of the proceedings, including other reasons.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the defence of the petitioners is frivolous and that such type of applications are not tenable compelling a party to undergo a DNA test.
7. The suit has proceeded further and the evidence is being recorded. A party cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test in a routine manner. In exceptional circumstances, such a recourse is permissible. Instead of deciding the merits of the matter at this stage of the proceedings, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file an application as is permissible in law.
8. The writ petition is disposed of without causing any interference in the impugned order.
9. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application seeking a ZIP
direction for a DNA test, as is permissible in law, which shall be considered on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any view at this juncture.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP