[1] I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother Sulong Matjeraie and agree with his reasons All I wish to do is to add a few words of my own.

[2] As my learned brother has pointed out, this is a case in which counsel clearly missed the target. This is a case in which the plaintiff's claim is essentially monetary in nature based on a clause in an agreement for the sale and purchase of land. The defendant's counterclaim is based on an alleged defamatory statement made in the course of correspondence. The question is not the one that counsel addressed, namely, the application of the proviso to s 8(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 . The true question is whether as a matter of procedure the counterclaim was properly joined in the present instance. In my judgment that question must be answered against the appellant.

[3] The rule of practice and procedure established by the decision in High Commissioner for India & Ors v. Ghosh [1959] 3 WLR 811 is that:-

a counterclaim cannot be maintained unless it is shown that... (see Esso Standard Malaya Bhd v. Southern Cross Airways (Malaysia) Bhd, 1972 MarsdenLR 207 , per Raja Azlan Shah J (as His Royal Highness