Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This is an appeal against the order of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur striking out the appellant's action under the provisions of O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. We heard and dismissed this appeal on 19 October 1995 without calling upon the respondent to address us. The reasons for our decision are now produced.

The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows. The parties to this appeal entered into an agreement dated 13 October 1991, for the sale and purchase of a certain piece of property. The respondent, as owner of the property was the vendor and the appellant was the purchaser. The agreement recites the purchase price to be RM4,990,000. Clause 5 of the agreement requires the respondent to deliver-up a duly executed transfer to the apellant's solicitors to be held by them pending the conclusion of the sale. Such a provision is commonplace in the context of our conveyancing practice. It is merely to ensure that there is no undue delay in having the transfer adjudicated by the Collector of Stamp Duty to ascertain the amount of duty payable, so that the instrument may be properly stamped and in readiness for presentation to the