Vincent Ng Kim Khoay J:

[1] On 30 June 1992, the plaintiff company (plaintiffs) filed an originating summons (encl 3) seeking:

(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the beneficial and registrable owners of the motor car No PBJ 7531 (the said car).

(2) An order that the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant company (2nd defendants) do forthwith pay the balance of the purchase price of RM16,500 for the sale of motor car bearing registration No PBJ 7531 to the plaintiffs.

(3) Alternatively, an order that the 1st and 2nd defendants do execute all necessary documents and hand over the registration book to restore the legal ownership of the motor car bearing registration No PBJ 7531 to the plaintiffs within seven (7) days from the date of the order sought.

(4) In the event the 1st and 2nd defendants fail to comply with order sought under para 3 above herein, that the Ketua Pendaftar, Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan, Pulau Pinang, as the appropriate registering authority be ordered to rectify the registration book with the Plaintiff restored as the true registered owner of the said motor car.

(5) That pending the determination of "this summons, the plaintiffs be entitled to renew the road tax and other relevant documents for the use of the said motor car in their business.

(6) The 1st and 2nd defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs' use and possession of the said motor car.

(7) Such further or other relief as this honourable Court may deem fit.

[2] In order to indicate the true nature of the plaintiffs' claim it is perhaps pertinent to set out the following material averments in the supporting affidavit of one Keith Chong Yong Woo, the assistant managing director of the plaintiff company affirmed on 30 June 1992 (encl 2):

(a) On 7 December 1991, there was a sale of the said motor car from the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant for a total consideration of the sum of RM19,000 of which sum only a sum of RM2,500 has todate been paid to the plaintiffs.

(b) The 2nd defendant granted hire purchase facilities to the 1st defendant to enable the 1st defendant to complete the purchase of the said motor car from the plaintiffs.

(c) To enable the 1st defendant to arrange for hire purchase facilities to purchase the said motor car the plaintiffs delivered the registration book of the said motor car and a duly executed MV3 Form for the former to be registered as owner of the said motor car.

(d) The 1st defendant has caused himself to become the registered owner of the said motor car w e f 7 December 1991 with the 2nd defendant's ownership claim endorsed on the registration book.

(e) At all material times, during the above transactions, and until now the said motor car is in the possession of the plaintiff pending the full payment of the purchase price.

(f) Despite repeated demands having been made by the plaintiffs and the last of which was made by their solicitors, Messrs Asbir, Hira Singh & Co, the 1st and 2nd defendants have refused and continue to refuse to pay the balance of the purchase price of RM16,500 or any part thereof to the plaintiffs.

[3] Soon thereafter, on 1 July 1992 the plaintiffs obtained, ex-parte, an order allowing the plaintiffs to renew the road tax and other relevant documents for the use of the said car in its business. It was also further ordered that the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents be restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs' use and possession of the said car. This then resulted in the 2nd defendants applying to set aside the said orders made on 1 July 1992.

[4] Currently, before me, is the 2nd defendants' application under summons-in-chambers dated 15 June 1993 (encl 26) to strike out the above originating summons, for non-compliance with the Rules of the High , 1980. In their supporting affidavit affirmed on 14 June 1993 (encl 25) the 2nd defendant averred that there are matters which had not been satisfactorily explained in th