Sinnathuray J:

[3] In this case, after four days of hearing, I invited Mr Durai for the defendants to address me this morning on the facts. He submits that the plaintiff and his material witnesses are not to be believed. Taken somewhat by surprise, as he may have been, counsel for the defendants, has nevertheless given instances from the evidence of the material witnesses to support his submission.

[4] In reply, counsel for the plaintiff says that it is obvious that I have made up my mind on the evidence of the witnesses, and therefore he would not submit on the facts. He then submits that there is some confusion in the submission of counsel for the defendants. It is said he has overlooked the main question for decision in this case. The question is: Was there an extension of time given by the defendants? It is correct that that is the issue.

[5] Now, in determining that issue what evidence have we got? Counsel for the plaintiff says that the credibility of witnesses is not an issue at this stage. With respect, I altogether disagree with him. Credibility of the evidence of the material witnesses is very much in issue on the question for determination. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the evidence of the witnesses must be viewed after the consideration of the whole of the case. What Mr Durai has submitted is that when one considers the totality of the plaintiff's case it is clear that there is no credible evidence. I altogether agree with that submission.

[6] It is not necessary now to deal with all the evidence or the law relating to no case to answer. As I have said, counsel for the defendants has dealt with some aspects of the evidence of the witnesses. I have taken particular care in this case to record the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, almost verbatim. During the adjournments overnight I have gone through the evidence. In my judgment the plaintiff has come to court, taken the affirmation and told me deliberate lies. There is only his evidence that there had been an extension of time. I disbelieve him.

[7] The other material witness in this case is Yusoff. I shall be brief. He ought to have been an independent witness. He ought to have come to tell the court, without any bias, of the circumstances relating to the purchase of the cars between the plaintiff and his company, Malayan Motors or its sister company, Universal Cars. But he was very much a partisan. That is why I wanted him to be here to listen to what I have to say, but he has chosen not to be in court this morning though he has not been released. In his cross-examination, it was demonstratively shown, and there are his many admissions, that his evidence-in-chief was wrong. He, too, is not to be believed.

[8] There is only one other material witness — PW4 Gopalakrishnan. I put to Mr Durai and asked him whether he considered him to be a tutored witness. Mr Durai submits that he is. I saw him in the witness box, head down, and eyes down. I asked him whether he was nervous or frightened. He said: "No". That was his demeanour. Then, he gave his evidence-in-chief. He said he went to the Marco Polo Hotel on 1 December 1976. Th