Steve Shim J:

There are two appeals before me. Both appeals are by the same plaintiff against the decisions of the learned senior assistant registrar dismissing the O. 14 applications for summary judgment taken out by the plaintiff against different defendants. As the factual background, circumstances and issues of the appeals are similar, it has been agreed by the parties involved that the outcome of one should also bind the other. On that note, I have decided to proceed with suit no. 22-782-98.

At the outset, counsel for the 2nd defendant has raised a preliminary objection, contending, in effect, that the sealed copy of the summons-inchambers ("the said summons") was served on the defendants' solicitors without any affidavit-in-support and therefore the said summons was a nullity. For a proper perspective of the objection, it is, I think, necessary to note the relevant factual sequence of events which are conveniently set out by the plaintiff's counsel as follows:

16.12.1998: Summons-in-chambers (encl. 14) filed with affidavit-in-support of Krishnan a/l Kandasamy affirmed on 16.12.1998.

Advance copies of summons-in-chambers and affidavit served on solicitors for the Defendants; Mesrs Chew & Lim and Messrs V Pury & Bala.

22.12.1998: Sealed summons-in-chambers served on solicitors for the Defendants, Messrs Chew & Lim and Messrs V Pury & Bala.

28.12.1998: 2nd Defendant's affidavit-in-reply dated 24.12.1998 served.

11.1.1999: Plaintiff's affidavit-in-reply to 2nd Defendant's affidavit filed and served.

26.1.1999: The 1st Defendant filed and served its affidavit-in-reply.

12.2.1999: Plaintiff's affidavit-in-reply filed and served.

18.5.1999: 1st Defendant's corrective affidavit filed and served.

Quite clearly, the complaint by the 2nd defendant is that when the plaintiff's solicitors served the sealed copy of the said summons on his solicitors on 22 December 1998, there was no affidavit accompanying it and hence there had been a breach of the Rules of the High Court. In expanding on this, counsel for the 2nd defendant has submitted that the service of the sealed summons alone (without the accompanying supporting affidavit) on 22 December 1998 was defective for breach of O. 14 r. 2(3) RHC which stipulates:

(3) The summons, a copy of the affidavit-in-support and of any exhibits referred to therein must be served on the defendant not less than 4 clear days before the return day.

For the plaintiff, it has been contended that particular emphasis should be placed on the words "served on the defendant not less than four clear days before the return day." Counsel for the plaintiff submits that what is more significant under the above sub-r. (3) is whether service of the documents expressly referred therein must be made not less than four clear days before the return day and not whether those documents should be served conjointly. According to him, the documents expressly referred therein need not be served conjointly so long as they are served on the defendants and/ or their solicitors not less than four clear days before the return day. I think that is a fair and proper construction to take. There is nothing expressly stated in O. 14 r. 2(3) that the summons and the supporting affidavit have to be served conjointly nor can any such implication arise therefrom. In my view, there is no absolute obligation on the part of the plaintiff and/or his solicitors to serve such documents conjointly on the defendants and/or their solicitors although of course ideally this should be done. Indeed, in almost every case, such documents have been served conjointly as a matter of course.

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the plaintiff's solicitors had served the unsealed summons together with the affidavit-in-support on the defendant's solicitors on 16 December 1998. As such, it is the plaintiff's position that the requirement for service of those documents not less than four clear days before the return day has been co