Respected Sirs,
On expiry of my Father,a boy claiming himself to be the only biological issue of my late broterr and his late wife filed a case for division of my late Father's immovable property. In proof he submitted a nomination from theogovt office of my brother as also school certificates ,Pasport showing the suit property as his temporary and permanet address and CBSE certifcates and a CGHS certificate showing him to be the beneficiary of my late brother. It turned out that the CGHS certificate submitted by him was fabricated This last point has not yet been brought to the notice of the Court by the Defendant)).
Judge called the Defendant. The defendant offered to undergo a DNA test with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's lawyer asked for some time consult the client. A week's time was given.
fter seven days when the parties apeared again ,the Concerned Judge was replaced by a different judge and the previous Judge didn't mention about the DNA test inthe Case File. The concerned Lawyer took advantage of this and didn't mention anything about the DNA test's concurrence of his clien tor not but started vociferously about the injustice being dine to his client and that in view of the CBSE certificates. Judge asked her if she had anyBirth Certificate of the Client To which then there was no response from te Plantiff's Lawyer but he simly asked that some more time be given for filing the Replication. Which was granted and tyhe The Judge DISSMISSED his Suitwhiich was filed under Order6 Rule 16 for expunging all clauses in the WS denying the locus of the Plaintiff as a biological son of mylate brother.
<y query is two fold
1. as The locus of the plaintiff as the biological son or otherwise of mylatebrother was denied and it was ISSUENo 1 atthe time Issues were framed
Would the Dismissalof the Plaintiff's Application which ewas couched like an Original side Civil suit be considered as RES JUDICATA or STARE DECISIS as far the Consideration of the ISSUE NO 1 of the ISSUES framed
CPC says that if a suit or an ISSUE hasbeen decided (in this case DISMISSED) would not be reopened again
QUERY No 2
THe Plaintiff and His learned Counsel did not report back to the Court to cnvetyto teCourt if the Plaintiff was willing or not to undergo a DNA test Was the plaintiff/his Counsel was duty bound to convey the decision of th e Plaintiff irrespective of the fact thatthe Judge was routinely replaced.
as tere was no mention in the Case Dossierabout the DNA test's willingness awaited, The point was ut to the Plaintiff during the Cross examination. His answer was "I don't knowI am not aware of ay DNA test.
On bein further reninded that hisvounsel ad sought time from the Court , He again repeated that he wasnot aware of it and doesn't know. But subsequently he admitted in te cross xamination that he had indeed refued to undergo a DNA test
Can the Lawyer of the PLaintiff be held liable for Conempt of the Court as per Section 2 of the Contemtof the Court Act
CAN\, IN THE FACE OF REFUAL OF THE EFUSAL OF THE DNA TEST D ABSENCE OF ANY BIRTH CERTFICATES EITHER FROM THE HOSPITL OF BIRTH OR THE MCD , THE PLAINTIFF MAINTAIN HIS CLAIMOF BEING A BILOGICAL SON OF MY LATE BROTHER.
I am a very Senior citizen with serous Hart andother health problems , I shall be most grateful for your valuable advice with any similar case laws if possible
anant ram
