Peh Swee Chin J:

I have earlier dismissed an appeal by the 7th defendant/appellant, (hereinafter called guarantor), against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar granting leave to the plaintiff to sign judgment on an O. 14 application but in doing so, I have reduced the judgment sum from RM1,311,792.85 with interest thereon to RM700,000 with interest thereon. I now give my grounds of decision.

The plaintiff had claimed against the guarantor on the basis of a letter of guarantee dated 6 January 82, whereby, in consideration of the plaintiff giving credit to or lending to a 3rd party, called Sin Hup Woh Transport and Trading Agencies Company Sdn Bhd., (herein after called the debtor), the guarantor agreed to guarantee the plaintiff by paying on demand, all money due and owing by the debtor, among other things, to the limit or extent, for principal, of RM700,000. On the date of the hearing of the application, the outstanding sum due from the debtor was said to be RM1,311,798.85, and a defence had already been filed by the guarantor.

It will be pertinent to refer to the defence. The guarantor denied, by the defence, the execution of the said letter of guarantee; the knowledge of and any sum having been lent to the debtor, and called for strict proof. The guarantor further averred that the claim against him was bad or premature in law.

The guarantor showed cause by affidavit, (encl. 33), answering to the affidavit made by one Wong Kim Meng who had described himself as the credit officer of the plaintiff, (bank), filed in support of the O. 14 application. The following matters were raised by the guarantor:

(1) He did not know Wong Kim Meng aforesaid, who did not attest his alleged signature to the alleged letter of guarantee.

(2) He denied signing the said letter of guarantee; he did not know that plaintiff had lent money to the debtor, or how much plaintiff had lent to the debtor, and that his signature on the letter of guarantee was a forgery.

(3) He had never seen the person who signed as an attesting witness to the letter of guarantee.

(4) While the claim for interest was at 16% p.a., yet this rate of interest was not stated in the letter of guarantee and the fact that the rate of interest was left blank, threw doubt on the genuineness of the letter of guarantee.

(5) Certain properties to the value of RM2 million had been charged to the plaintiff to secure the money lent to the debtor and the plaintiff had filed a charge action but no account of it had been given to the guarantor.

(6) Plaintiff had kept on increasing the amount of money lent to the debtor and obtained further guarantee for the same from other persons without telling him; and the execution of such further guarantee had revoked impliedly or discharged the alleged letter of guarantee from the guarantor.

(7) The limit of the guarantee was RM700,000 but the claim was for RM1,311,792.85.

(8) He relied on ss. 86, 87 and 92 of the Contracts Act.

(9) The letter of guarantee referred to the debtor as "Sin Hup Woh Transport and Trading" but in the statement of claim, the debtor was referred to as "Sin Hup Woh Transport and Trading Agencies Co. Sdn. Bhd. "It could be a clerical error but the letter of guarantee must be rectified first.

I pause to observe that the aforesaid sections of the Contracts Act, were quoted without any specific reference to any facts of this case to show how such sections applied to them. Having regard to the somewhat complicated nature of the provisions in the said sections, such mere mention of such sections in this manner would therefore be of doubtful value.

The following matters were raised by the plaintiff:

(1) That the witness to the guarantor's signature to the letter of guarantee was Yeoh Cheang Wah, the then manager of the plaintiff and that, Poh Lin Chuan, the deponent of affidavit dated 20 May 1986 and filed for the plaintiff, himself saw the guarantor sign the letter of guarantee before the said manager.

(2) Th