Azmi LP:

The plaintiffs, the Malayan Banking Berhad, obtained leave under O. 14 r. 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court from the High Court to sign final judgment against the defendants for the sum of $270,000 and interest etc. On the same day the order was drawn up and entered. About two days later, the defendants filed a notice of appeal against that order and a copy of it was served on the plaintiffs' solicitors. The plaintiffs now applied to us to have the notice of appeal set aside on four grounds. The first and main ground is that the judgment of the Court being an interlocutory judgment, the defendants should have applied to the trial Judge for further arguments in open Court under the provisions of s. 68(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act.

That sub-section reads as follows: -

(2) No appeal shall lie from an interlocutory order made by a Judge of the High Court in chambers, unless the Judge has certified, after application, within four days after the making of such order by any party for further argument in Court, that he requires no further arguments, or unless leave is obtained from the Federal Court or from a Judge of the High Court."

The defendants had neither