Article 227 does not warrant interference with rejection of an unnecessary DNA-test application as additional evidence.

The petitioners claimed the disputed land under a Will executed in 2016 and had their names mutated.

Respondent No. 1 claimed to be the daughter and legal heir of the original owner, Punaji, and challenged the petitioners’ claim to the property

During the suit, the petitioners sought DNA testing to dispute her parentage; the trial court rejected their applications in 2017 and 2018, and those orders were not challenged

After judgment and decree were entered against them, the petitioners sought to introduce DNA evidence in the first appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The appellate court rejected the application, relying in part on a school certificate produced by the petitioners that named Punaji as Amruta Bai’s father

The petitioners then challenged that rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution

Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to obtain DNA evidence concerning Amruta Bai’s parentage

Whether the rejection disclosed an error warranting the High Court’s interference under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227

Section 45 of the Evidence Act makes expert opinions relevant on specified matters, including science; it does not, by itself, entitle a party to obtain a DNA test

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence in appeal only in the specified circumstances, including where the trial court improperly refused evidence, the evidence could not despite due diligence have been produced earlier, or the appellate court requires it to decide the case or for another substantial cause

Section 90 of the Evidence Act permits a court, in the prescribed circumstances, to presume due execution and authenticity of a document at least thirty years old produced from proper custody

Under Article 227, supervisory intervention is limited; it is not an appellate review and is warranted in exceptional cases such as patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice.

The Court relied on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329

The High Court found that the DNA applications had already been rejected by the trial court and those orders were not challenged; the petitioners’ subsequent request in appeal did not establish a basis for admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

The appellate court had considered the proposed test, the parties whose samples would be needed, and the school certificate naming Punaji as Amruta Bai’s father; it concluded that the requested test was unnecessary

The High Court also considered the privacy implications of seeking testing involving a third party and held that the appellate court had properly exercised its discretion

Applying the limited scope of Article 227, it found no patent perversity or other ground for supervisory intervention

The appellate court’s rejection of the application to introduce DNA evidence therefore remained undisturbed