Clement Skinner J:

There are five applications before me. Before I say what they are, I shall state briefly the facts giving rise to them.

The plaintiff, a licensed bank, granted overdraft facilities to the first defendant in the sum of RM3,092,602.20. The second and third defendants stood as guarantors to the facility granted to the first defendant. The plaintiff, claiming that the first defendant was in breach of its obligations to repay the amounts due under the overdraft facility, and also that the second and third defendants were in breach of their obligations to pay the sums due under the guarantee, caused a writ of summons together with a statement of claim (hereafter together referred to as 'the writ') to be issued out against them on 30 March 2000.

I should mention here that as the writ was issued out prior to the amendment made to O. 6 r. 7(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC') which took effect on 22 September 2000, it remained valid for service in the first instance for 12 months beginning with the date of its issue ie, until 29 March 2001.

Upon issue of the writ the plaintiff attempted service of the same on the second defendant but says it encountered difficulties in doing so. It is best that I now set out a chronology of relevant events that occurred in this suit as it will put the five applications that have been filed into their proper context.

Within about 11 days of the issue of the writ, that is on 11 April 2000, the plaintiff took steps to serve the same on the second defendant by posting it by AR Registered post addressed to him at 25 Upper Lanang Road, Sibu (hereafter "the Sibu address") because by cl. 24 of the guarantee he had signed on 20 February 1997, that was the address at which the second defendant had agreed service of any legal process could be effected on him. The second defendant had also agreed by the same clause in the guarantee that if any legal process was effected on him by prepaid registered or ordinary post at his address specified in the guarantee or at his last known place of business or registered address, then such legal process shall be deemed to have been duly served on the fifth (5th) day following that on which it was posted, notwithstanding that the said legal process may be subsequently returned undelivered. Clause 24 in the guarantee reads:

Any demand for payment or service of any legal process may be made or effected by prepaid registered or ordinary post addressed to me/us or to each of us at my/our address specified herein or at my/our last known place of business or registered address and such demand or legal process shall be deemed to have been duly served on the fifth (5th) following that on which it is posted, notwithstanding that the said demand or legal process may subsequently be returned undelivered by the postal authorities. "Legal process" shall mean all forms of originating process, pleadings, interlocutory applications of whatever nature, affidavits, orders and such documents, other than the aforesaid, which are required to be served under any legislation or subsidiary legislation or by the terms of this Guarantee.

The address specified by the second defendant in the guarantee is the Sibu address. As evidence of posting of the Writ to the second defendant on 11 April 2000, the plaintiff produced an AR Card issued by Pos Malaysia Berhad but the AR Card shows that the writ was acknowledged by a company called "Umas Sdn Bhd." of 2A, 2nd Floor, Brook Drive P.O. Box 1548, 96000 Sibu. On 30 May 2000 the plaintiff made another attempt at serving the writ on the second defendant by posting it by AR Registered post addressed to him at the same address ie, the Sibu address. As evidence of posting on this second occasion, the plaintiff produced an AR Card issued by Pos Malaysia Berhad but again the AR Card was returned showing that the writ had been acknowledged by Umas Sdn Bhd. The AR Cards referred to above are attached as exhs. '3' and '4' to the affida