(delivering the JUDGMENT of the court): The facts in this appeal are not in dispute and, so far as relevant, are these. On 24 October 1984, United Overseas Bank Ltd ('the bank') obtained a judgment in the High court in suit no 6288 of 1984 against one Lim Chiak Kim ('Lim') for the sum of $24,759.93 with interest and costs ('the judgment sum'). Soon thereafter, on 3 November 1984, on an application made ex parte by the bank, a charging order nisi was made imposing a charge on the land and premises belonging to Lim, namely, lot 1776 of mukim X with the house thereon known as 117, Jalan Dermawan ('the property'). At that time, the property had already been brought under the provisions of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Ed) and was comprised (and is comprised) in certificate of title registered in vol 185 folio 22 which was issued on 15 February 1977 and had been mortgaged by Lim in favour of The Bank of Canton Ltd ('the mortgagees'). To protect the interest of the bank, a caveat claiming an interest in the property by virtue of the charging order nisi was lodged with the Registry of Titles on behalf of the bank. Before the charging order nisi was made absolute, the bank applied for and obtained an order on 24 October 1984 appointing receivers to enforce the order and subsequently on 30 November 1984 the charging order was made absolute. Again, a caveat claiming an interest in the property by virtue of the charging order absolute was lodged with the Registry of Titles on behalf of the bank. Thereafter, neither the bank nor the receivers appeared to have taken any step towards enforcing the order absolute or otherwise.

On 26 February 1985, the mortgagees exercised the power of sale and sold the property to a purchaser under a sale and purchase agreement. At or about that time, another creditor, namely, Heller Factoring (Singapore) Ltd ('Heller Factoring'), took action against Lim and on 15 March 1985 obtained a judgment in the High court against Lim, and immediately thereafter took out a bankruptcy notice which was served on him on 29 March 1985. He failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice, and following that Heller Factoring presented a bankruptcy petition against Lim on 15 May 1985, and on the following day gave notice of Lim's act of bankruptcy to the bank.

On 27 May 1985, the mortgagees completed the sale of the property and received the proceeds thereof, part of which was applied towards payment of the amount due to them and the balance was held by them or their solicitors. Subsequently, on 26 July 1985, receiving and adjudication orders were made against Lim in the bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Heller Factoring and the respondent ('the Official Assignee') was thereupon constituted the receiver of Lim's estate. The balance of the proceeds of sale then in the hands of the mortgagees or their solicitors was paid to the Official Assignee. In consequence of such payment, the bank claimed from the Official Assignee the judgment sum, which was resisted by the latter on the ground that the execution of the judgment by the bank had not been completed.

On 13 January 1986, the bank applied by notice of motion to the High court for an order directing the Official Assignee to pay to the bank the judgment sum and costs. The application was heard by Wahab Ghows J on 25 March 1986 and he allowed the application and made the order accordingly. In his grounds of decision, the learned judge said:

I cannot agree with Miss Teh's contention that para (a) of sub-s (2) of s 49 of the Bankruptcy Act should be construed as if it reads: 'For the purposes of this Act an execution against goods or land is completed by seizure and sale, or in the case of the debtor's equitable interest in land by the appointment of a receiver.' In my view this is not a true construction of that paragraph. In the present case the applicants (the bank), having obtained the order absolute imposing a charge on the property at no 117, Jalan Dermawan, could have