- (1.) Arti Nobbs filed a suit against her brother Raj Kumar Arora alias Madhu Sudhan Arora and her sisters arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Rita Arora alias Rita Jain and Anuradha. The suit was brought in Amritsar.
(2.) All the siblings live in the United Kingdom. The suit is for declaration to the effect that Arti Nobbs is owner in possession of the property in dispute described in the plaint measuring 2186.42 sq. yds. situated at Batala Road, Amritsar. A part of this land is occupied by a petrol pump known by trade name "Auto Oils" and she asserts in the plaint that she is owner of both the land and the petrol pump. The consequential relief claimed is for permanent injunction restraining the brothers and sisters from interfering in her possession and in business carried on by her so as not to interfere in the peaceful running of the said business. One of her sisters, Rita Arora alias Rita Jain - defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte and has remained in that status in limbo. The suit was filed in 2005. Arti Nobbs claims suit property on the basis of a registered Will dated February 03, 2004 left behind by her father after making her the sole beneficiary. It is alleged that the defendants resorted to dilatory tactics for one reason or the other and finally a joint written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 on June 07, 2007 together with an application under Section 11 of the CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The contesting defendants also filed a counter-claim seeking declaration with respect to the property in dispute, for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against Arti Nobbs as also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.50 lacs from the plaintiff. The court fee payable was not affixed with the counter claim and a request was made for grant of time to make good the deficiency which was granted. It may be mentioned that instead of affixing the court fee on damages claimed, the contesting defendants moved an application abandoning their claim for damages in the counter claim due to certain adverse orders passed calling upon them to make good the deficient court fee. That application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on May 13, 2010 which brought defendant No.1 - Raj Kumar Arora to file Civil Revision No.4538 of 2010 before this Court which was allowed by setting aside the order dated May 13, 2010. The defendant-petitioner was permitted to withdraw his claim for damages in the counter claim.
(3.) The long and short of story is that the contesting defendants filed a counter claim/cross suit on June 07, 2007 and on August 22, 2007 Arti Nobbs moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14, and under Order 11 Rule 4 and 15 of the Code etc. that she was unable to file a written statement to the counter claim in absence of non-access to certain documents lying in the possession of the contesting defendants and relied upon by the defendants which are required to be placed on record for her to inspect before she is able to file a reply. These documents are narrated as follows in the application:- "i) Entire record of Police Complaints by Smt. Sneh lata Aurora. ii) Record of concerned police Stations. iii)Record of Registrar of Births and Deaths in England and India. iv) Record of Child Custody case No.99 CP _____ decided on 21.12.1999 by London Courts. v) Record of partition suit No.448/2003 between Sh. Raj Kumar Arora and another Versus Sneh Lata Aurora and others, decided on 28.03.2005 by the court of sh. Baljinder Singh, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) vi) Record of the Criminal Case No.175/21.10.05 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar. vii)Record and proof of construction of suit property.";