Lim Beng Choon J:

On 9 August 1987, the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Court ("the SAR") made absolute a garnishment order nisi against the garnishee, directing the garnishee to satisfy the judgment recovered by the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor, out of certain sums of money which were alleged to be owing or accruing from the garnishee to the judgment debtor. The garnishee was also directed to appear before the said SAR on 2 September 1987 for the purpose of settling the amount to be garnished. The garnishee, being dissatisfied with the order of the SAR, now appeals to me to set aside the said order.

In order to appreciate the issue raised in this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief summary of the events leading to this appeal. On 17 February 1987 the judgment creditor instituted an action as plantiffs under Civil Suit No. 24-17-87 of the High Court Alor Setar against the judgment debtor (the defendants in that action). In that civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were indebted to them in the sum of RM66,937.70, being the amount owed by the plaintiffs, and particulars of the transactions had been rendered to the defendants. Despite numerous requests for payment made by the plaintiffs, including a notice of demand in writing dated 12 January 1987 issued by the plaintiffs' solicitors to the defendants demanding for the payment of the amount owed to them, the defendants failed to settle the said amount. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for judgment against the defendants for the aforesaid sum including interests and costs. As the defendants in that suit failed to enter appearance, the plaintiffs obtained a certificate of non-appearance firm this Court on 18 February 1987. In the result, the plaintiffs entered judgment in default of appearance on the same day. The judgment was duly drawn up and extracted on 4 March 1987 whereby the defendants were directed to pay the plaintiffs a sum of RM66,937.70 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as from 12 January 1987 till the date of realisation and costs. As the judgment sum remained unsatisfied, the judgment creditor made a number of ex parte applications under O. 49 r. 2 directing certain purported debtors, who were said to be indebted to the judgment debtor, to show cause as to why the amount of the debts owed by those purported debtors should not be garnished. For some reason or other, no further steps were taken by the judgment creditor to pursue the matter against those purported debtors. On 5 July 1987, the judgment creditor, in desperation to recover the judgment sum, made another ex parte application for, and obtained a garnishment order nisi ordering the garnishee to appear and show cause. In response to the order nisi, one En. Adnan Mahidin, the chairman of the garnishee company, filed in an affidavit on 22 July 1987 by which it was contended that there was no money or debt due and owing from the garnishee to the judgment debtor. Despite this contention, the SAR, after hearing the respective Counsel for the garnishee and the judgment creditor, made absolute the order nisi as stated above.

The sole issue arising from this appeal is, whether the sum of RM101,716.51, already earned by the judgment debtor in respect of the works which they had carried out under the contract for the construction of the Jitra/Alor Setar Highway Project, and which sum was retained by the garnishee as retention money for the purpose of compensating the latter for defects in the works carried out by the judgment creditor, could be garnished under O. 49 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

It is to be noted that the words appearing in O. 49 r. 1 that are crucial in determining the issue in this appeal are:

... the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee.

The judicial definition of the crucial words has been propounded in numerous English cases, but, nevertheless, it has been stated that it is v