(delivering the judgment of the Court): The application is for conditional leave to appeal to His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and is made under the provisions of section 74(1) Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 (the Act) which regulate, negatively, the matters that are appealable thereto. The appeal is said to concern a subject-matter of a value of more than $25,000, in which case an appeal lies as of right: section 74(1)(a)(i). Alternatively it is argued that the appeal is by its nature a fit one for appeal: section 74(1)(a)(iii). If so, the discretion lies in the Federal Court whether or not to grant leave: Lopez v Valliappa Chettiar [1968] 1 MLJ 224.

The case concerns an interpleader summons. For the details of the preceding events which it is necessary to understand, the affidavit in support is woefully deficient and we have to turn to the court file for such of the details as are required to give a proper understanding of the issues relating to the application.

In Civil Suit No. 2477 of 1976, Wiggins Teape (M) Sdn. Bhd. on December 10, 1976 entered judgment in default of defence against Bahagia Trading Sdn. Bhd. for $158,131.18 with interest and costs. On January 25, 1977 the judgment creditor applied for and had issued a writ of execution. On April 27, 1977 Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Bhd. (MIDF) lodged an objection to the seizure of certain pieces of machinery. The solicitors for the judgment creditor initially consented to the release of these goods. On May 5, 1977, another objector in the identity of Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd. (MIMB) appeared. Another firm, the East Asiatic Co. Ltd. (EAC) also lodged a claim. The several claims concerned the same pieces of machinery, in particular one Heidelberg offset printing machine which had been obtained by the judgment debtor from EAC in circumstances which did not pass the title and affixed by it to the land which had been leased to the judgment debtor but charged to MIMB by the lessor.

The judgment creditor was in a quandary. While it had no objection to the release of goods not under dispute, it was unable to determine to whom the articles should be released. It therefore asked the Sheriff to determine this question and to act according to his determination. Its solicitors accordingly withdrew their previous letter of release. As for the articles under dispute, it asked for an interpleader summons to be taken by the Sheriff and for a hearing of this summons.

The Senior Assistant Registrar who heard the interpleader summons decided in respect of the Heidelberg offset printing machine in favour of MIMB and dismissed the claim of EAC. On appeal, which was first heard in chambers and later in open court, the judge, on November 10, 1979 delivered a reserved judgment. He held that the machine was so affixed to the ground that it had become a fixture and therefore formed part of the land which had been charged to MIMB. EAC was dissatisfied and within time and without further ado, lodged a notice of appeal from this judgment to the Federal Court, under the provisions of Order 54 rule 23, Rules of the High Court, 1957. EAC did not consider the provisions of section 68(3) of the Act on matters appealable to the Federal Court.

This subsection reads:

"68(3). No appeal shall lie from a decision of a Judge in Chambers in a summary way on an interpleader summons, where the facts are not in dispute, except by leave of the Federal Court or a Judge of the High Court, but an appeal shall lie from a judgment given in Court on the trial of an interpleader issue."

By this subsection, it is a matter of some importance to consider whether the interpleader summons had been decided by the judge in chambers in a summary manner or whether there had been a trial of an interpleader issue, in order to determine whether leave is required for an appeal from the judge in chambers to the Federal Court or the appeal is a matter of right.

The provisions for th