JUDGMENT

Lim Beng Choon J:

The plaintiff instituted an action on 9 January 1990 by writ endorsed with a statement of claim in which he alleged that the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to the newspaper reporters of the New Straits Times , The Star and the Sunday Mail certain statements on 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 & 25 December 1989 respectively which are defamatory of the plaintiff and which the defendant published as a part of a vindictive and malicious campaign to discredit the plaintiff and to show that the plaintiff was unfit to hold the offices of Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Secretary General of the Malaysian Indian Congress, Member of Parliament of Kapar, Director of TV3 and/or any public office. The plaintiff therefore claimed for damages for slander and/or libel (including aggravated damages), and an injunction to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from further publishing the said or any similar defamatory words defamatory of the plaintiff and costs.

On 5 February 1990 the defendant applied by way of summons-in-chambers for leave to enter conditional appearance on the ground that the defendant intended to and would be applying to set aside service of the writ on him and for an order declaring that the writ had not been duly served on him in accordance with the Rules of High 1980 . The application was supported by an affidavit affirmed on 5 February 1990 by a clerk attached to the defendant's law firm in which it was stated inter alia that in the ordinary course of his work he had opened the post box at the office of Messrs Karpal Singh & Co. at about 11.30 a.m. on 2 February 1990 and he had found an envelope addressed to Mr. Karpal Singh from Messrs Murthi & Partners, Advocates & solicitors Klang together with AR card annexed thereto lying in the post box. He had taken out the envelope and left it on Mr. Karpal Singh's table. On Mr. Karpal Singh's return to Kuala Lumpur on 5 February 1990 morning he had opened it and had enquired about it.

Apparently the application of the defendant for leave to enter a conditional appearance was allowed and he duly filed in his memorandum of conditional appearance on 6 February 1990. Thereafter on 8 February 1990 the defendant applied again by summons-in-chambers for the following orders:

(1) an order that the purported service of the writ of summons and statement of claim herein on the defendant by AR registered post or post on or about 2 February 1990 be set aside;

(2) an order declaring that the writ has not been duly served on the defendant; and

(3) an order that the plaintiff do bear and pay all costs of an incidental to this application.

The application was supported by an affidavit by the defendant on 8 February 1990. In the affidavit the defendant reiterated what was asserted by his clerk in the latter's affidavit mentioned above. The defendant then asserted that the writ of summons was required to be personally served on him and not by AR registered post or by post and hence the purported service or service of the writ on him by AR registered post or by post was wrong in law and was contrary to the Rules of High 1980 .

The hearing of the defendant's application to set aside the service of the writ was postponed a few times as the dates fixed for hearing were found not suitable to either the Counsel for the plaintiff or the defendant who is representing himself. Before a final date was fixed for hearing surprisingly the solicitors for the plaintiff Messrs. Murthi & Partners once again served the writ and statement of claim on the defendant on 11 December 1990. The defendant accepted the writ under protest and without prejudice to his pending application to set aside the service of the writ. As a result of the second service of the writ the defendant again applied for leave to enter conditional appearance which he duly did with leave of the Court and again applied on 27 December 1990 to set aside the second ser