Abdul Hamid Mohamad J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar setting aside the bankruptcy notice dated 29 March 1996. The appellant is the judgment creditor in this bankruptcy proceeding.

The judgment creditor had obtained a judgment for S$5,357,187 (RM8,389,354.84) and costs in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 8 May 1991 in Civil Suit No. 2275 of 1989.

Subsequently, in a proceeding in the High Court Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian Court, made the following order:

... ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN

(1) Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Republik Singapura Guaman No: 2275 tahun 1989 yang bertarikh 8 haribulan Mei, 1991, di mana Defendan Kedua telah dihukum untuk membuat bayaran sebanyak S$5,357,187.00 (iaitu sebanyak RM8,389,354.84 pada kadar pertukaran 1.566 pada 8 haribulan Mei, 1991) bersama dengan faedah pada kadar 8% setahun mulai dari tarikh pengeluaran Writ Saman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian dan kos sebanyak S$450.00 (iaitu sebanyak RM704.70 pada kadar pertukaran 1.566 pada 8 haribulan Mei, 1991) dapat didaftarkan sebagai satu Penghakiman di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya selaras dengan Akta Penguatkuasaan Penghakiman Bersaling, 1958; dan

With that order, the judgment creditor issued a bankruptcy notice against the judgment debtor.

There appears to be some problems in serving the bankruptcy notice on the judgment creditor and the life of the bankruptcy notice had to be extended and was extended.

Finally, after it was served, the judgment debtor, on 17 April 1997, filed a summons-in-chambers to set aside the bankruptcy notice. The Senior Assistant Registrar allowed the application. The judgment creditor appealed to judgein-chambers. I dismissed the appeal.

Even though the judgment debtor raised a number of grounds in his affidavits challenging the bankruptcy notice, before me only one issue was canvassed, ie, whether the Singapore judgment has been registered in Malaysia, as provided by the rules.

Section 4(1) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99) provides that an application may be made to the High Court of this country to have a foreign judgment registered. Section 4(2), inter alia, provides:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the setting aside of registration -

(a) a registered judgment shall, for the purpose of execution, be of the same force and effect,

(b) proceedings may be taken on a registered judgment,

(c) ...

(d) ...

as if the judgment had been a judgment originally given in the registering court and entered on the date of registration ...

Section 5 provides for the setting aside of a registered judgment.

Section 6 empowers the Malaysian court to set aside a registered judgment.

Section 7 provides:

7. No proceedings for the recovery of a sum payable under a judgment of a superior court, being a judgment to which this Part applies, other than proceedings by way of registration of the judgment, shall be entertained by any court in Malaysia.

We now come to the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC 1980). The relevant order is O. 67.

Rule 2 provides that an application to have the foreign judgment registered must be made by an originating summons. No appearance need be entered to the originating summons. (In Singapore the practise is that the application is heard ex parte - see The Development Bank of Singapore Ltd v. Furniture Industries Pte Ltd & Ors [1992] 2 CLJ 809.

After hearing the application the judge-in-chambers or the registrar may give leave to register the judgment. Rules 5 provides:

5.(1) An order in Form 145 giving leave to register a judgment must be drawn up by, or on behalf of, the judgment creditor and served on the judgment debtor.

(2) Every such order shall state the period within which an application may be made to set aside the registration and shall contain a notification that execution on the judgment will not issue until after the expiration of that period.

(3) The Court may, on an appli