TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application in the trial court for conducting DNA Test of the plaintiff and the defendant to prove paternity issue. Learned trial court vide its order dated 15th February, 2007 rejected the application of the plaintiff. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff preferred a writ petition No. 2008/2007 before the Single Bench of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 10-4-2007. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred the present Special Appeal. 4. The appeal came up for hearing before Division Bench on 20-10-2008 and the following order was passed : In view of the questions involved in this appeal, it is referred to Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to answer that question of law which has been formulated but nothing beyond that. The Full Bench remitted the matters back to the Division Bench for deciding the same on merits, in accordance with law. The relevant paras of order passed by Full Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma Another v. State of Rajasthan Others (supra) are as under : The next in line is the judgment in 1981 (Supp.) SCC 38, Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India Others, which says that if a question of law is referred to by Single Judge or Division Bench, the Bench must decide that question only and send the case back to single Judge alongwith its answer to the question. It clearly stipulates that only the question of law that has been referred to, has to be answered an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently, we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31-1-2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants herein. In the light of aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, it is well settled law that we are required to answer that question of law which has been formulated but nothing beyond that. However, the order dated 2-12-2005, quoted hereinabove, does not reflect, show, indicate or suggest as to correctness of which part of the order dated 29-5-2002 was doubted. We have no barometer to assess as to what had transpired on the said date, before the Division Bench. In abasence of particular reference to any part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
