Zakaria Yatim J:

There were two applications in this suit which came up for hearing before me in chambers.

In the first application the first and the third defendants sought the order of this Court, (a) that their notice of appeal to Judge in Chambers dated 21 June 1988, which was struck out/dismissed, be reinstated; (b) a date be fixed for the hearing of the said appeal upon reinstatement; and (c) costs. The application was filed on 1 December 1989 and supported by an affidavit affirmed by the second defendant, Han Siew Mung on 1 December 1989.

In the second application, the first and second defendant sought the order of the Court that time for applying for further argument in open Court be enlarged to four days from the date of granting this application pursuant to O. 50 r. 2(2) of the Rules of the High Court. The application was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the second defendant on 5 December 1989.

I shall briefly state that events that had taken place before dealing with the two applications.

On 6 August 1987 the plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment against the three defendants under O. 14 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court. The application was heard by the Senior Assistant Registrar on 16 June 1988, and he made an order granting the defendants' conditional leave to defend the plaintiff's suit subject to the defendants paying into Court the claimed sum of RM608,885.44 with interest. He also made an order that in the event of default of payment into Court the plaintiff would be at liberty to enter final judgment for the said sum together with interest and costs.

On 21 June 1988 the three defendants filed their notice of appeal; to the Judge in chambers. The defendants were appealing against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar who granted them conditional leave to defend the suit.

The appeal was set down for hearing on 13 October 1988. On that date the hearing was adjourned to another date, because Counsel from the firm of solicitors Messrs. Gurbakhash & Tan, who was acting for the defendants was ill. The next hearing date was 5 March 1989. On that date Mr. Gurbakhash informed me that the second defendant had been made a bankrupt in 1978 and he did not think that he could act for the second defendant. Both Mr. Gurbakhash and Miss. J. Chong, Counsel for the plaintiff made brief submissions and they said they needed more time to look up authorities. The hearing was adjourned to 25 May 1989 for continuation. On 25 May, Miss Jean Chong said that she wished to amend the statement of claim and asked for an adjournment. Mr. Gurbakhash did not object to the application for adjournment provided that he was paid costs. The hearing was adjourned to 20 November 1989 and I ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM100 to the defendants.

On 20 November 1989 when the hearing resumed, Miss Jean Chong, Counsel for the plaintiff was present and the second defendant appeared in person. The first and third defendants were absent. Mr. Raj who appeared on behalf of the official assignee was present at the request of the Court. At the hearing, the second defendant told the Court that he had just appointed a new Counsel to represent him. His Counsel phoned the plaintiff's Counsel requesting for a postponement as he had to study the papers but the plaintiff's Counsel did not agree to a postponement. At the hearing Miss Jean Chong confirmed that she did not agree to a postponement.

I refused to grant the adjournment and proceed to continue with the hearing of the appeals. The second defendant conducted his appeal in person. He was interrupted by Miss Jean Chong, who said that the second defendant had already been adjudicated a bankrupt. The second defendant confirmed that he had been adjudicated a bankrupt in 1978 and had not been discharged yet. At this stage Mr. Raj confirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit against the second defendant but said that he needed time to study whether the second