VT Singham J:

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Session Court Judge who had on 25 March 2008 granted the respondent's application for summary Judgment under O 26A(1) of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 for the sum of RM88,101.39. The respondent's claim against the appellant is for interest payment due at 1.5% per month as at 30 June 2006 on the late payments made after the period of 60 days of the credit facilities granted to the appellant for goods sold and delivered to the appellant. The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who had granted the summary Judgment in favour of the respondent has appealed to this Court. In this appeal, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as the defendant and Plaintiff respectively.

[2] This Court 6 finds that the facts which are not in dispute between the parties are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff had sold and delivered goods to the defendant as per the delivery orders and invoices as included in the Record of Appeal (encl 5) and acknowledged by the plaintiff with the company stamp and signature.

(ii) Amongst the terms of the credit facilities granted to the defendant, the defendant is to pay for the price of the goods sold and delivered before the expiry of the 60 days.

(iii) Some of the payments for the goods which were settled by the defendant were after the 60 days grace period.

(iv) A fax letter dated 13 December 2002 (exh KSK3) as exhibited in the affidavit in reply no: 2 of the plaintiff which was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to a telephone conversation on 5 December 2002 was received by the plaintiff.

(v) The defendant had by another fax letter dated 8 March 2004 replied to the plaintiff's letter dated 2 March 2004 requesting to grant time and a further period of 3-4 months to take up the payment of interest due as at 31 December 2003 with the management for consideration.

(vi) By the said fax letter dated 8 March 2004, the defendant had requested the plaintiff only to grant them a further period of three to four months to take up the claim on interest payment to their management for consideration but the defendant had never denied that they were not liable to pay the interest.

(vii) The delivery orders and the Invoices which contain the endorsements were sent by the plaintiff and received by the defendant with the endorsements during the period when the goods were delivered to the defendant which is as follows:

(a) On the delivery orders, it is endorsed "interest will be charged on overdue account at the rate of 1.5% per month".

(b) On the invoices, it is endorsed "interest of 1.5% per month will be charged if payment is not received within the due date without prejudice to our rights to institute legal proceedings for recovery."

(viii) As to the notice of demand dated 14 August 2006 (exh KSK1) sent by Plaintiff's solicitors to the defendant which the defendant had received, the defendant had denied the interest payment through their solicitor's reply dated 29 August 2006 for the said sum of RM88,101.39, being the charges due for the late payments and contended that the defendant had never agreed to pay the interest charges to the plaintiff.

(ix) As the defendant had failed to pay the said sum of RM88,101.39, the plaintiff had filed the summons with the statement of claim dated 27 December 2006 at the Sessions Court Ipoh, to claim for the said sum of RM88,101.39.

(x) The defendant had filed the statement of defence dated 28 February 2007.

(xi) The plaintiff had filed the application dated 10 April 2007 and supported by an affidavit affirmed on 9 April 2007 for summary Judgment under O 26A(1) of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 against the defendant.

(xii) The defendant had contested the application for the summary Judgment by filing an affidavit in reply affirmed on 25 April 2007. In fact, there are three affidavits by the plaintiff and three affidavits in reply by the defendant.

(xiii) On 2