Balia Yusof Wahi J:

[1] The plaintiff applied for an order for sale of the defendant's property and the defendant claims that the said application is bad in law and ought not to be granted. The defendant claims it has shown a cause to the contrary in opposing the application.

[2] The defendant's land was charged to the plaintiff on 12 August 1999 as a security for the repayment to Malayan Banking Berhad for all monies owing for the facilities provided to the defendant totalling RM3,750,000. Exhibit MBB1 in encl. 2 is the letter of offer enclosed in the plaintiff's affidavit in support of this application and it states the various types of facilities granted to the defendant. Paragraph 4 of encl. 2 which is reflective of the terms provided in the letter of offer (exh. MBB1) sets out as follows:

Kemudahan Tahap (RM) Kadar Faedah

Berkuatkuasa

Kemudahan Tahap (RM) Kadar Faedah Berkuatkuasa

Overdraft 450,000-00 2.25% setahun atas Kadar Pinjaman Asas*, pada dasar kiraan harian

- 1 Facilities Package Tradeline - Letter of Credit (LC) Trusts Receipts (TR)Bank Acceptance (BA) 1,300,000-00 Association of Banks in Malaysia rate 8.5% setahun 8.5% setahun

- Package 2 - Tradeline Facilities Letter of Credit (LC) Trusts Receipts (TR)Bank Acceptance (BA) 2,000,000-00 Association of Banks in Malaysia rate 2.00% setahun atas Kadar Pinjaman Asas* 2.00% setahun atas Komisyen Penerimaan

* Kadar Pinjaman Asas semasa ialah 6.00% setahun berkuatkuasa dari 23/05/2003.

[3] In issuing the notice of default with respect to the charge in Form 16D, the plaintiff indicated (exh. MBB6 in encl. 2) as at 31 August 2003, the amount due and owing to the plaintiff is RM3,862,530.35 and the prescribed interest rate was put at 2.25% per annum above the base lending rate on daily rest. Over and above that, the plaintiff also imposed a penalty interest of 1% per annum over and above the aforesaid prescribed interest rate on the entire outstanding amount from the date of default until full settlement subject to a minimum charge of RM5. It is to be noted at this stage that the plaintiff has the right to impose the additional 1% penalty interest as was clearly stated in the plaintiff's letter of offer dated 20 December 2001.

[4] The challenge put up by the defendant is premised on the ground that the Form 16D issued by the plaintiff is defective and null and void and the defendant further disputes the amount stated therein on the ground that the rate of interest imposed by the plaintiff was wrong. The defendant filed an affidavit in reply via encl. 9 and through the same has clearly demonstrated before this court that in the letter of offer by the plaintiff, the defendant was accorded with various types of facilities including overdraft facilities which carries with it different rates of interest. However, in issuing the Form 16D as exhibited in exh. MBB6 of encl. 2, the rate of interest sought to be claimed by the plaintiff differs from the rate as stated in the letter of offer exhibited as exh. MBB1 of the same enclosure. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff has no right to impose the 1% penalty interest and further claim that the amount demanded in the Form 16D is unclear as to whether it has included the said penalty interest. On the defendant's objection to the additional 1% interest imposed, I do not think there is any merit in its argument as the plaintiff has the right to do so as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of offer and furthermore the plain reading of the said Form 16D leaves no doubt whatsoever.

[5] In reply to encl. 9, the plaintiff has filed encl. 10 contending that the plaintiff is not bound to give any statement of account relating to its claim in the Form 16D and mentions that the interest rate applied was correct and it is within its power to impose the additional 1% penalty interest. It is to be noted that the plaintiff filed altogether ten affidavits in support of its claim but none of these did address th