Strict compliance with appellate procedural rules is mandatory; failure leads to appeal dismissal.

Salient Facts As Summarized By The Respondent/Plaintiff

[1] The Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants (namely Tan Bee Kon - 2nd Defendant & Chong Kok Weng - 3rd Defendant in the Court appealed from) had through a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 15 December 1999 (pp 259-268 record of appeal, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement" purchased from JT Polymer Sdn Bhd (JT Polymer) a factory known as No 44, Jalan Perdagangan 16, Taman Universiti, 81300, Skudai Johor (the Factory) with the purchase price at RM460,000.00. To finance the purchase of the Factory, the Appellant/1st Defendant together with the other two Defendants had obtained a friendly loan from the Respondent/Plaintiff in the amount of RM92,000.00 and $173,000.00 (equal to RM383, 213.00 at the exchange rate of 1:2.215 at the material time) amounting to RM475,213.00 wherein out of this total amount, RM15,213.00 had been paid to the solicitor acting for the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants, that is, Messrs Leng & Co being the legal fee and other disbursement.

[2] The Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants had at the same time granted an option dated 15 December 1999 in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff (the Option, at pp 269-279 record of appeal), the right of first refusal to purchase the Factory from the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants wherein the friendly loan in the amount of RM92,000.00 which had been requested by the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants from the Respondent/Plaintiff. In the Option, the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants had admitted that there was insufficient fund to purchase the Factory and had agreed that the RM92,000.00 shall be appropriated as the deposit to purchase the Factory. In the Option it also, inter alia, provides that the Option shall be exercised within 5 years from the date of the Option or within 30 days after the expiration of 14 days from the date of the notice of demand for the repayment of the loan. Clause 2 of the Option also stipulates that the said loan shall be repayable on demand.

[3] The Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants also entered another Acknowledgement of Loan dated 23 February 2000 (pp 280-281 record of appeal) acknowledging that they had received RM92,000.00 from the Respondent/Plaintiff and had further requested an additional loan amount of $173,000.00 and the said additional friendly loan shall also be paid On Demand wherein part of the loan shall be paid towards the balance purchase price of RM368,000.00. The Agreement was finally perfected and the ownership of Factory was subsequently transferred to the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants.

[4] The Respondent/Plaintiff did not exercise the Option within the time frame but elected to demand the total amount of RM475,213.00 from the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants through a notice of demand dated 3 December 2013 (pp 313-315 record of appeal) issued by his solicitor, Messrs Saw & Tan but the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants refused to make any payment, as a result of which civil suit was commenced against them.

[5] The Summary Judgment was subsequently applied against the Appellant/1st Defendant and the other two Defendants. The 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant had admitted to the amount claimed that is, RM475,213.00 whereas the Appellant/1st Defendant contested the application based on the technical ground that is, the Affidavit In Reply by the Respondent/Plaintiff did not serve on the Appellant/1st Defendant's solicitor within 14 days time frame as provided by the Rules of Court 2012 resulting the summary judg