Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

I have read both the judgments of my learned brothers Abu Mansor Ali, JCA and Abdul Malek, JCA, in draft and I agree with their conclusions that both the appeals be dismissed with costs and the deposits to go to the respondents to the account of their taxed costs.

Abu Mansor Ali JCA:

The appellants in both suits appeal against our decisions given on 18 August 1998 dismissing with costs both their appeals against the decisions of the learned judge from Pulau Pinang dated 23 August 1995 allowing the defendants' applications in encl. (26), to strike out the plaintiffs statement of claim for reason of non prosecution, also allowing the defendants application in encl. (43) to strike out the defendants' statement of defence with costs.

We heard substantive arguments of counsel for the appellant and respondents and we came to the conclusion that the appeals were without merit and we held it was trite law that we would not lightly disturb the learned judge's very careful and reasoned judgment in their very complex applications. In both appeals the learned judge gave one lengthy judgment. Following the learned judge's judgment, we heard both appeals No 13 P-02-603-95 and No 14 P- 02-604-95 together with the consent of all parties. Before the start of the appeals, we also granted as prayed in terms of two motions to amend the amended memorandum of appeals with no objection from the respondents. For ease of reference, we will call the appellant as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.

In order that we may not go into any confusion we set down here how the learned trial judge treated the various enclosures before him and in respect of which cases. We quote:

I would like to preface this judgment by stating that the grounds of judgment herein (Suit 22-1643-1985) are in respect of decisions made on enclosure (26) in this action and enclosures (37) and (43) in Suit 22-1618-1985 in the High Court in Malaya at Penang between:

Airconditioning Systems Design Sendirian Berhad ... Plaintiff

And

1. Chuah Teong Hooi 2. Anthony Geoffrey [as receivers and managers of the property of Atlas Intek (M) Sendirian Berhad] ... Defendants

which suit shall hereinafter be referred to as "the related suit". Arguments on the said enclosures were, at the request of the parties, taken together, hence this single judgment involving all three enclosures together.

Any reference in this judgment to any of these enclosures by itself shall be a reference to that enclosure as specified above.

It may assist the understanding of these appeals as if we give the facts of this case. They are as follows.

On 5 September 1994 the defendants filed an application in encl. (26) to dismiss this action for want of prosecution pursuant to O. 25 r. 1(4) or the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application was supported by an affidavit at encl. (25) affirmed on behalf of the defendants by one Hoh See Lee ("Hoh's affidavit") who was in the employ of the third and fourth defendants, the receivers and managers of the first and second defendants.

By Hoh's affidavit the defendants averred that the plaintiff had filed its claim against them on 27 December 1985 on the ground that they had failed to permit the plaintiff to remove an airconditioning system and other equipment ("the goods") it had delivered to and installed on the first and second defendants' premises pursuant to agreements which the plaintiff had entered into with a company called Avtech Construction Sendirian Berhad ("Avtech"). The defendants had filed their defence on 18 April 1986.

He further stated that on 18 September 1986, Mr Justice Edgar Joseph Jr (as his Lordship then was) made an order, inter alia, for priority to be given for the early trial of this action. On 2 April 1987, a notice of change of solicitors was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, followed by another change to the present solicitors on 12 June 1990. Since 18 September 1986 until the affirming of his