VC George J:

The plaintiff bank having obtained judgment against a customer of theirs called Dewan Enterprise (M) Sdn. Bhd. caused the instant writ to issue against the two defendants claiming the said judgment amount against the defendants as guarantors of the said customer of the bank. The second named defendant did not appear to the writ and judgment in default was eventually entered against him. The first named defendant entered an appearance and filed a statement of defence, the terms of which invited O. 14 proceedings. It would seem that the necessary summons was filed but, apparently through an administrative slip up, the summons never came on for hearing. Meanwhile, the suit was allowed to lie dormant and accordingly a notice of intention to proceed under O. 3 r. 6 of the rules of the High 1980 dated 24 November 1983 was served on the solicitors of the first defendant who thereupon wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors the letter of 9 January 1984 which letter was not marked without prejudice and is here reproduced.

Dear Sirs,

C.S. No. C 544/1981

We refer to the above matter and to your notice of 24 November 1983.

We have been instructed by our client to implore that he