Edgar Joseph Jr J:

At the conclusion of the arguments yesterday, I allowed this appeal and shall now state my reasons for having done so.

This was an appeal against the decision of the learned President, Sessions Court, giving summary judgment in favour of the respondent for the sum of RM12,449.25 under the provisions of O. 26A r. 3(1) of the Subordinate Courts Rules, 1980, in an action for goods sold and delivered.

The record provided shows that the defence filed merely denied that the sum claimed or any part thereof was owing by the appellant to the respondent who was put to strict proof. Such a defence is bad in law because in an action for goods sold and delivered the defendant must not merely plead a denial of the debt but must plead any facts which negative its existence or show that the action is unsustainable on other grounds, for example, the order or contract, the delivery of the amount claimed. Indeed, if a defendant by his Statement of Defence simply "puts the plaintiff to proof of the several allegations in their statement of claim" the defendant will be taken as admitting the claims alleged in the Statement of Claim and the plaintiff would be entitled to judg