JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Appellant impugns order dated 10.12.2020 whereby the application filed by the appellant as also by respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC have been dismissed.

3. Both applications had sought vacation of order dated 25.02.2013 which had been confirmed by the order dated 13.08.2015.

4. Notice has been served on respondent No. 3, however, none appears for respondent no. 3 (defendant No. 2 in the suit). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since appellant has already made the payment of the letter of credit to respondent No. 3, respondent no. 3 may not be interested in defending the appeal.

5. In view of the above, respondent no. 3 (defendant no. 2 in the suit) is proceeded ex-parte.

6. Subject suit was filed by the respondent no. 2 seeking declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction.

7. By order dated 25.02.2013 while issuing summons in the suit, on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court had noticed that an order has been placed upon respondent no. 3 for supply of industrial oil and payment was to be paid through letter of credit after 180 days.

8.