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 c