A lender's compliant statement of account serves as conclusive proof of the loan amount due, shifting the burden to the borrower to disprove any claims of error or inaccuracy.

JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman JC:

Introduction

[1] On 3 March 2020 I allowed the Plaintiff's Amended Originating Summons for an Order for Sale over the Defendant's land which he had charged to the Plaintiff. I found that he had not satisfied the Court of the existence of any cause to the contrary under s 256(3) of the National Land Code , 1965. I am writing this Grounds of Judgment because he has appealed against that Order.

Salient Background Facts

[2] By a Letter of Offer dated 10 November 2016, the Plaintiff approved the application by the Defendant and two others, namely Chua Hung Tatt and Datin Hoo Soot Khing (collectively, "the Borrowers") for a Home Flexi Smart-I loan of RM3,000,000.00 under the Syariah concept of Commodity Murabahah. The loan was to refinance the double-storey house at No 33, Jalan Sri Hartamas 17, Taman Sri Hartamas, 50480 Kuala Lumpur situated on the land held under Geran 14664 Lot 48208 and Geran 14465 Lot 48209, Mukim and District of Kuala Lumpur (collectively, "the Lands") registered in the Defendant's name. As security for the Loan, the Defendant charged the Lands to the Plaintiff.

[3] When the Borrowers defaulted in the repayment of the Loan, the Plaintiff commenced order for sale proceedings, by issuing demands for payment, then the Statutory Form 16D, and then filing this action. At the date this Originating Summons was filed, the amount outstanding under the Loan was RM8,714,642.47.

[4] In his first Affidavit opposing the Originating Summons, the Defendant did not deny the Loan, or the charge, or the default, or receiving the demands and the Statutory Notice. His two challenges were to the amount the Plaintiff alleged was outstanding under the charge, and to prayer 2 of the Originating Summons for the public auction of the Land to be carried out at the Pusat Operasi e-Lelong, Kompleks Mahkamah Kuantan ("the Pusat Operasi e-Lelong").

[5] On the same day he filed that Affidavit, the Defendant also filed an application to strike out the Originating Summons, on the ground that it was defective because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Rules of , 2012, namely O 7 r 2(1A) (in failing to mention O 28 in the intitulement) and O 7 r 3 (in failing to plead particulars necessary to identify the cause(s) of action). This Court dismissed that application on 10 December 2021 with no order as to costs, further directing the Plaintiff to file an application by 24 December 2021 to amend the Originating Summons to add particulars relating to the cause of action.

[6] The Plaintiff did as directed and, as the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff's application to amend the Originating Summons, on 3 January 2022 the Court ailowed it, and fixed the Amended Originating Summons for hearing on 7 February 2022, also issuing directions for written submissions.

[7] All in all, the Defendant filed three written submissions to oppose the Amended Originating Summons. In his Written Submissions (encl 32), the Defendant focused solely on the Plaintiff's failure to comply with O 83 rr 3(3) and 3(6) of the Rules of , 2012 in providing the particulars of the amount remaining due under the charge as at the hearing date of the Originating Summons. In his Reply Submissions (encl 37), the Defendant further pointed out the Plaintiff's failure to amend the Originating Summons within 14 days of 3 January 2022 in accordance with O 20 r 9 of the Rules of , 2012. In his Further Reply Submissions (encl 42), he disputed the Plaintiffs statement as to the amount remaining due under the charge that the Plaintiff had adduced after his Written Submissions (encl 32). He did not submit on prayer 2 of the Originating Summons for the public auction of the Land to be carried out at the Pusat Operasi e-Lelong, which I take to mean that he had abandoned that objection.

[8] Just before the hearing of the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Originating Summons (encl 41) but without applying for any extension of time. When the hearing of the