K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before me is that the Parentage of the Petitioner was not challenged by anybody, therefore, the revisional court was wholly unjustified in negativing the claim of the Petitioner. In this regard my attention has been drawn to Paragraph 8 of the ruling reported in Ram Das v. Ishwar Chandra and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1422 .;