Zainun Ali J:

The plaintiffs' application to extend time to file an affidavit in reply under O. 3 r. 5(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC), was supported by an affidavit (encl. 14), affirmed by the plaintiffs' counsel, Ms Rachel Chacko.

The plaintiffs' application was in response to the defendants' application to strike off the order given on 13 May 1999 by this Court, allowing the plaintiffs' ex parte application to extend the validity of a private caveat until the disposal of the case.

When the matter came up before the senior assistant registrar (SAR), the SAR struck off the plaintiffs' affidavit on the ground that the plaintiffs' affidavit was defective and ordered the plaintiffs to refile a fresh affidavit. The plaintiffs had since filed a fresh affidavit, marked as encl. (20).

The defendants, aggrieved by the SAR's decision now appeal against that decision before the judge in chambers and strenuously argued that the SAR ought to have struck off the whole of the plaintiffs' application in encl. (15) together with the plaintiffs' supporting affidavit in encl.(14). Mr. Robert Lai for the appellants (defendant) submitted that the SAR was wrong in striking