Chong Siew Fai J:

[1] In this summons the plaintiff applies under O 3 r 5 of the Rules of the High 1980 for extension of time to appeal against the order of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar given on 25 January 1992 ordering that "execution of this Judgment be stayed pending the outcome of the trial of the counterclaim or further order".

[2] The application is supported by the affidavit, of its area manager Victor Chin Jun Hock affirmed on 26 February 1994. The defendants opposed the application. Though an affidavit in opposition was filed, Counsel for the defendants, owing to the plaintiff's objection to its being used, chose not to reply on it. I do not think the defendants are in any way adversely affected by the move since the objection contained in the written submission 'RESPT' could properly and effectively be advanced without the aid of the affidavit.

[3] For the defendants, it was contended that the application was defective in that it sought an order to appeal as opposed to extend the time to appeal. I see no merit in the argument. The relevant wording in the summons reads thus:

for an order that notwithstanding the time limited.................for doing so has