Gita Mittal, J.

“No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions!” [Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 530]

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 28th November, 2014 passed in CS(OS)No.724/2006. A composite order dismissing I.A.No. 8296/2014 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for brevity) and thereafter holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time resulting in rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was passed. As a consequence, the interim injunction order subsisting in favour of the plaintiff appellant came to be vacated.

2. Most of the respondents in this appeal are senior citizens. The respondent no.1 is around 90 years of age, completely bed ridden and could come to court only in a wheel chair, assisted by her daughters - the respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent no.5 is stated to be in his eighties, suffering from an eye problem who also needs the assistance of an attendant. The respondent no.6 who was 69 years of age at the time of filing his written statement in October, 2006 would be about 78 years at present. These circumstances have compelled us to address the facts and circumstances in this unfortunate litigation in some detail to place the material in its entirety on record so as to facilitate finality in adjudication.

3. For the purposes of convenience, we are referring to the nomenclature as assigned in the suit to the parties.

4. The litigation relates to the property no.N-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (referred to as the suit property hereafter).

5. The material facts giving rise to this unfortunate litigation are undisputed and are briefly set down hereafter :

5.1. Late Shri Aishi Lal Relan was allotted leasehold rights by the President of India in a plot in Block-N bearing no. 18 situated in the Jangpura Extension, New Delhi which was formalised by a lease deed dated 14th December, 1960.

5.2. From the marriage of Late Shri Aishi Lal Relan and Smt. Kaushal Kumari Relan (respondent no. 1 herein/defendant no.1 in the original suit), they were blessed with the four offsprings, detailed as below : (i) son - Raminder Kumar - (defendant no. 2) who expired during pendency of the suit; (ii) daughter - Promila Kapoor - (respondent no. 3 herein/defendant no. 3) (iii) son - Harish Relan - (appellant herein/plaintiff) (iv) daughter - Pooja Relan - (respondent no. 2 herein/defendant no. 4 in the suit)

5.3. Shri Aishi Lal Relan expired on 25th September, 1989 at New Delhi, survived by his widow and children i.e. five legal heirs.

5.4. In the year 1984, the defendant no.3 Promila Kapoor got married and started residing with her husband at her matrimonial home till 1996 when she shifted to the United States of America with her family.

5.5. The plaintiff Harish Relan got married in the year 1994 and shifted out of the suit premises to rented accommodation at B-1/59 (Opposite Mandir) Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi.

5.6. From the plaintiff's documents, it is revealed that defendant no.3 Promila Kapoor, vide General Power of Attorney dated 27th August, 1999 executed at Springfield PA, USA duly stamped in India, appointed her sister, the defendant no.4 Pooja Relan, as her attorney to execute a relinquishment deed on her behalf relinquishing all rights in the said property in favour of their mother Smt. Kaushal Kumari Relan.

5.7. On 18th November, 1999, the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 2 to 4 (all the children of Late Shri Aishi Lal Relan and Smt. Kaushal Kumari Relan) executed a registered relinquishment deed (Exh.P-1) whereby each of them respectively relinquished their