The plaintiffs as chargees of the land known as lot no 9525 in the township of Johore Bahru held under grant no 23537 took out foreclosure proceedings and on 10 March 1986, the court granted a consent order giving the defendant chargor until 10 April 1986 to make certain payments failing which the said consent order provided that the plaintiffs as chargees were at liberty to proceed to have the said land sold for the recovery of some $213,384.66, being the amount outstanding secured by the charge due and payable as on 10 March 1986 by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defendant failed to make the payment and on 15 June 1986 directions for the sale of the land were given by the learned senior assistant registrar by her order of 15 June 1986 which, inter alia, prescribed the conditions of sale. Condition 5 provided that the highest bidder at the auction shall be the successful purchaser. Condition 6 provided that the purchaser shall immediately after successfully bidding for the land pay a deposit of 25% of the amount of the purchase price to the senior assistant registrar. Condition 7 was as follows:

The purchase shall be completed at the Registry, High Court, Johore Bahru and the balance of the purchase money shall be paid into court to the credit of the above-mentioned proceedings within thirty (30) days from the date of the sale; if the 30th day shall fall on a holiday, then on the first day after the 30th day, and this respect time shall be the essence of this contract. (Emphasis added.)

Apparently the conditions of sale were published with the emphasis as shown in the above reproduction of condition 7.

The successful bidder at the auction on 20 September 1987 was Boo Choon Sia who is referred to as 'the purchaser' in this summons. The purchase price was $145,000 and in keeping with condition 6 of the conditions of sale, the purchaser forthwith paid to the senior assistant registrar $36,250 being 25% of the purchase price. The balance was to be paid, as per condition 7, within 30 days of 20 September 1987. The purchaser however failed to comply with condition 7 of the conditions of sale in that he failed to pay the balance of the purchase price or any portion thereof within the said period prescribed by condition 7. The amount due was tendered to the court only on 29 September of the following year.

The court file shows that by a letter dated 2 February 1988 to the purchaser, the senior assistant registrar reminded the purchaser that he had not paid the balance of the purchase price. By his reply dated 7 February 1988, the purchaser said he was hoping to obtain a loan to pay off the balance and he further expressed the hope that he would be given an extension of time.

On 11 June 1988, the plaintiff filed a summons-in-chambers seeking an order that they were entitled to the deposit of $36,250 as money forfeited to the vendor, and for that amount less costs and expenses of the auction to be paid over to them, such amount to diminish the amount that the charge secured. The summons-in-chambers was fixed for hearing on 24 August 1988. I pause to note that this summons-in-chambers was entered in the court file as encl 66.

Well over a month after the encl 66 was filed, the purchaser, on 28 July 1988, filed a summons-in-chambers seeking an extension of two months from 28 July 1988 to complete the purchase of the land auctioned on 20 September 1987. Apparently, because there was a certificate of urgency, this summons was fixed for hearing on 30 July 1988. It was sought to be and was fixed to be heard on an ex parte basis. Curiously, although the purchaser's summons was filed well over a month after the plaintiffs' said summons encl 66, it was entered into the court file as encl 61.

On 30 July 1988, the summons encl 61 was heard ex parte and the learned senior assistant registrar purported to grant the applicant purchaser an extension of two months from 30 July 1988 to complete the purchase. On 29 September 1988, which