Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail J:

[1] The plaintiff is a licensed finance company and the defendant is carrying on the business of property valuation. Prior to 18 October 1984 one Ah Loy trading as Nyet Yoon Enterprise (the borrower) applied for a loan from the plaintiff and as security intended to charge a piece of property situated at Lot 2506 Mukim Semenyih, Hulu Langat Selangor. The borrower employed defendant to make a valuation of the said property.

[2] Consequently the defendant submitted a valuation report dated 18 October 1984 and in that report inter alia stated:

(a) there was a double storey house of less than 4 years erected on the said property; and

(b) they valued the said property at a fair market value of RM260,000 and a forced sale value of RM220,000.

[3] The plaintiff relying on the valuation report granted a loan of RM150,000 to the borrower on security of charge of the said property. Plaintiff claims that in truth and in fact the statement contained in the valuation report was misleading and/or false and untrue in that there was no house at all erected on the said property and that the fair market or forced sale value of the said property was not as stated by the defendant. In consequence the plaintiff claims that they had suffered loss as the loan was never repaid from the very beginning. Therefore plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant claiming as special damages the loan amount of RM150,000 with interest ranging from 15% to 17% per annum. They also claimed general damages.

[4] The defendant entered appearance and filed their statement of defence denying the plaintiff's claim and alleging negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed this application by summons in chambers for an order that the plaintiff's claim be struck off under all the four limbs of O 18 r 19 Rules of the High 1980.

[5] Now it is trite law that this rule enforces the rule of pleadings and empowers the Court in a summary manner, without holding a trial, to order stay or to dismiss an action or enter judgment accordingly where the pleadings discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence or is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or it prejudices embarrasses or delays the fair trial of the action or it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. There are no derth of authorities on the principle upon which the Court ought to act in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of this rule. There is no doubt that the power to dismiss an action summarily without a trial is indeed a drastic power. There fore only in plain and obvious cases that recourse be had to this summary procedure under the rule.

[6] The Supreme Court recently in dismissing a similar application expressed the same sentiments, where the Court in Bandar Builders & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Berhad [1993] 2 SCR 628 said at p 635:

The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19 Rules of the High are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule per Lindley M R in Hubbuck v. Wilkinson [1899] 1 QB 86, p 91, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the fact of it "obviously unsustainable". Att -Gen of Dutchy of Lancaster v. L & N W Ry Co [1992] 3 CL 271 CA. It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence.

[7] It is also settled law that the mere fact that the case is weak and unlikely to succeed is no ground for striking out and also where the pleadings can be amended, leave under the rule to amend will almost always be given. In other words if there are defects in the pleadings resulting in the other party applying to strike out, and if an amendment can correct defect, the Courts generally would not act summarily.