JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J. (Oral)

CM No. 16628/2010

1. This is an application filed by Mr. Subhash Chand Jain/ respondent No. 6. In the trial court proceedings, he was arrayed as defendant No. 2. His contention is that he was not served in the suit proceedings; no summons had been issued to him; the body of the application has detailed the various facets of civil proceedings. It is submitted that each and every defendant is entitled to be served independently; it goes on to detail the further fact that defendant No. 2 was never served and this has caused a travesty of justice. By way of this application, he seeks that the matter be remanded back to the trial court in order that respondent No. 6/ applicant/ defendant No. 2 is able to put-forth his defence. The reply filed has belied these contentions raised by the applicant. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that on 30.04.1984, defendant No. 2/ respondent No. 6 had put in appearance before the trial court; he had in fact filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for setting aside the injunction order dated 26.04.1984. This application h