(delivering the judgment of the Court): In the action the plaintiff has asked for a declaration that the transfers to and registration of the land held under Certificate of Title No. 13817 Lot No. 6025 situate in the Mukim of Senai-Kulai, with a bungalow dwelling house erected thereon (the said property) in the name of the second defendant and subsequently in the name of the third defendant as beneficial owners thereof are unlawful, null and void, and for other consequential orders. On October 2, 1979 the defendants applied by way of Summons-in-Chambers No. 608 of 1979 for an Order that the action be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, the issues therein having been determined and adjudicated upon in an action between the same parties in Johore Bahru High Court Civil Suit No. 261 of 1977 and the same is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court and that the plaintiff pay to the defendants their costs in the action and the application and that in the meantime all further proceedings in the action be stayed. On October 10, 1979 Anuar J. granted the application. The plaintiff (appellant) is appealing against the learned judge's decision.

The defendants (respondents) filed a notice of motion on December 11, 1979 asking, that this application be heard before the appeal (prayer (a)); that the appeal be dismissed on the grounds that the notice of appeal dated and filed herein on October 22, 1979 has not been brought in accordance with and does not comply with Form I of the First Schedule to Federal Court (Civil Appeals) (Transitional) Rules, 1963 (the said rules) in that it is not directed as required to the various addressees (prayer (b)), that there has been no proper notice of appeal in that the notice of appeal dated October 22, 1979 was filed before the learned judge issued his certificate on October 29, 1979 (prayer (c)) and that all the copies of the memorandum of appeal are undated and unsigned by either the appellant or her solicitors as required by rule 19(3) of and Form 3 of the First Schedule to the said Rules (prayer (d)); for such orders as may be made as may be necessary under the circumstances (prayer (e)) and that the respondents be given the costs of this application and of the appeal (prayer (f). Affidavit in support of this application made by Dato Suppiah, the second defendant and the solicitor in charge of the appeal for all the three respondents, was filed on December 11, 1979, while an affidavit in rely made by Mr. S.P. Naiker, solicitor for the appellant was filed on December 18, 1979.

On January 8, 1980 notice of motion was filed by appellant asking for the following Orders:

(1) that the Order of Court dated the 10th day of October 1979 be amended by substituting the word 'allowed' for the word 'dismissed' appearing therein at page 156 of the Record of Appeal;

(2) that the appellant or her solicitors be given liberty to formalise the memorandum of appeal at page 7 of the record of appeal by signing all copies of the same hereof;

(3) that the appellant or her solicitors be given liberty to formalise the Notice of Appeal so as to conform with Form I of the First Schedule of the said Rules, in terms of the address thereof,

and for such further or other Order as this Honourable Court deems fit.

As prayers (2) and (3) of appellant's application seek to overcome prayers (d) and (b) respectively of the respondents' application we decided to hear the 2 applications together before hearing the appeal. That incidentally disposes of prayer (a) of the respondents' application. Prayer (1) of the appellant's application is merely a request to rectify the clerical error in the Order dated October 10, 1979 and we allow it.

It is the contention of Dato Suppiah that as rule 6(3) provides that "A Notice of Appeal shall substantially be in Form I" non-compliance therewith is fatal. With respect we do not agree with him. Rule 95(1) of the said rules reads as follows:

"95(1) Non-c