The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings must not cause injustice to the other party and should demonstrate bona fide intentions.

Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

This appeal is against the order of the learned judge who dismissed the appellant's application to amend his statement of defence. It is Civil Appeal No. W-02-720-99. There are two other appeals filed by the appellant. They relate to the issue of the amendment of the appellant's statement of defence. They are Civil Appeal Nos. W02-787-99 and W-02-788-99.

With the agreement of counsel for both parties we directed the parties to proceed with Civil Appeal No. W-02-720-99. Counsel for the appellant, however, intimated to us that the other two appeals be put on hold pending the outcome of the present appeal. Apparently, he felt that his client should not be prejudiced in the event he failed in the present appeal. We agreed to the stand taken by him.

On 23 September 2000 we allowed the appeal in part but dismissed the appeal with costs on the ground of lack of bona fide of the appellant's application.

Cik Gurmit Kaur Sidhu, counsel for the appellant, on behalf of the senior counsel, Mr. Cecil Abraham, who, we were told, was away overseas, prayed for adjournment of Civil Appeal Nos. W-02-787-99 and W-02-788-99 to seek instructions. Dato' Sivaparanjothi, counsel for the respondents, did not object and we adjourned these two appeals to a date to be fixed. We now proceed to give our reasons.

The application of the appellant for the amendment of his statement of defence arose out of Civil Suit No. S2-23-42-1996 initiated by the respondents against the appellant for damages premised upon alleged slander and libel arising from a publication in the International Commercial Litigation Magazine issue for November, 1995 entitled "Malaysian Justice on Trial".

Before the hearing of this appeal, there is a motion filed by the appellant on 8 March 2000 praying -

(1) that the appellant be granted an extension of time from the 16 November 1999 up to seven (7) days from the hearing on this application to file and serve a Supplementary Record of Appeal in this appeal incorporating a certified true copy of the order dated 8

September 1999 granted by the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur and under appeal herein, and the documents within the Common Agreed Bundle of Documents marked as "CABD-3" filed in the High Court;

(2) that the costs of this application be ordered to be costs in the cause;

(3) such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit, just and appropriate.

It is supported by the affidavit of the appellant.

In respect of the first part of prayer (1), ie the inclusion of the order dated 8 September 1999 by way of a Supplementary Record of Appeal, counsel for the respondents had no objection. However, in respect of the second part of prayer (1) ie the inclusion of "CABD-3", counsel for the respondents objected.

We allowed the first part of prayer (1) but disallowed the second part thereof. We ordered the costs of the application to follow the event of this appeal.

In order to appreciate the bona fide issue, a brief chronology of events would be helpful and it is set out hereunder:

13 June 1996 Respondents' writ and statement of claim filed in court.

9 September 1996 Appellant's statement of defence filed and served.

23 September 1996 Respondent's reply to the statement of defence filed and served.

JUDGMENT

Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

This appeal is against the order of the learned judge who dismissed the appellant's application to amend his statement of defence. It is Civil Appeal No. W-02-720-99. There are two other appeals filed by the appellant. They relate to the issue of the amendment of the appellant's statement of defence. They are Civil Appeal Nos. W02-787-99 and W-02-788-99.

With the agreement of counsel for both parties we directed the parties to proceed with Civil Appeal No. W-02-720-99. Counsel for the appellant, however, i