The defendant enjoyed an overdraft facility for the sum of RM1.8 million from Southern Bank Berhad pursuant to an agreement. This facility was secured by fixing a legal charge over a piece of land under title No. HS(D) 6694, PT 73, Kawasan Bandar XXXI, District of Melaka Tengah. Subsequently an additional sum of RM700,000 was sought for by the defendant from the plaintiff, thus increasing the facility to RM2.5 million. This additional RM700,000 was conditional on the same piece of land being charged a second time in favour of the plaintiff. When the material document was brought to the land office for registration, that office refused to register the second charge. Inspite of that failure, the bank still disbursed the additional RM700,000. Therefore, for all intents and purposes the material land had only one charge over it. Subsequently, the defendant failed to make the periodical payments and the plaintiff took up proceedings to foreclose the material land. By 13 May 1998, the gross sum owed, inclusive of interest had exceeded RM2.7 million. Pursuant to the agreement of the facility, and in line with s. 253 of the National Land Code , the plaintiff sent a notice of demand to the defendant, to the tune of RM2,725,415.20, inclusive of interest. The inclusion of interest in this statutory form for the RM1.8 million, is legally in order as it may be legitimately included (Jacob v. Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation, Ipoh[1974] 1 MLRA 342; [1974] 2 MLJ 161; Mary Michael V. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd. [1970] 1 MLRA 358; [1971] 1 MLJ 172 . This act of the plaintiff for an order of sale is not an attempt to enforce a judgement debt, but merely enforcing a right as a chargee, by exercising his statutory remedy under the National Land Code 1965 (Kandiah Peter v. Public Bank Bhd[1993] 1 MLRA 505; [1994] 1 MLJ 119; [1993] 4 CLJ 332; [1993] 2 AMR 3464; Siong Holdings Sdn. Bhd. V. Development & Commercial Bank Bhd. [1996] 2 MLRA 182; [1997] 1 MLJ 340; [1997] 1 CLJ 590 . The plaintiff is entitled to do so, as, by the creation of that charge it had acquired an interest in that land, albeit the legal title and ownership of the land still remaining vested in the name of the registered proprietor. Further to this, in passing, by virtue of this legal predicament, the court's powers in relation to interest is also curtailed. It may only impose interest on the sum owing on the rate agreed between the parties from the date of the order to the date of the public auction.

A foreclosure action is a separate action to that of any kind of contractual agreement and may be undertaken by an aggrieved party regardless of the existence of that agreement (Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v. Esah Binti Abdul Ghani[1985