Hamid Sultan JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the appellants/plaintiffs' appeal against the decision of the learned deputy registrar who allowed the respondent/3rd defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim.

[2] The appellants say their cause of action is based on the following: (i) the 3rd defendant is the owner of and/or beneficiary of approximately 4400 hectares of land granted by the Government of Selangor for the development of Federal Administrative Centre at Putrajaya (Putrajaya Project). The development works were granted to the 2nd defendant. The 1st and 2nd defendants entered into a contract for the Putrajaya Project (main contract). The main contract was sub-contracted to the 1st plaintiff. By reason of the aforesaid, a privity of estate and/or covenants in equity exists between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants whereby the land relating to Putrajaya Project is burdened and/or encumbered with. (ii) the 1st plaintiff had done all obligations under the sub-contract when the 1st defendant terminated and/or suspended the said sub-contract causing immense loss and damage to the plaintiffs. (iii) the 3rd defendant is named and/or sued as a party by virtue of its position as the owner of the Putrajaya Project AND also in its capacity as the principal or employer under the Putrajaya Project, the main contract and the sub-contract under the provisions of the Sarawak Labour Ordinance whereby the principal or employer is liable under statute to its sub-contractor and/or the 1st plaintiff under the sub-contract. (iv) AND the plaintiffs, inter alia, claim against the defendants (a) as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally:- (i) for a declaration that the said sub-contract dated 09-06-1997 had been cancelled and/or terminated and/or rescinded in law and/or is not binding on them; (ii) and/or alternatively an order for the rescission of the said sub-contract dated the 09-06-1997; (iii) for an order for the return and/or refund of utility deposit, the security deposit and the unused licence fee of RM40,000.00, RM20,000.00 and RM3,661,108.08 respectively making a total of RM3,721,108.08; (iv) for payment of the said sum of RM2,386,515.48; (v) for special damages of RM160,000.00; (vi) for general damages, interest, costs, etc.

[3] The appellants have taken a number of procedural objections namely:

(i) there was no intitulement in the summons in chambers.

(ii) the said application under Order 18 rule 19(a)(b)(c) or (d) is defective and fatally flawed as it is disjunctive and the respondent has not elected as to which sub-paragraph they are relying on.

[4] The respondent's case and the procedural objections of the appellants before the learned deputy registrar are well articulated in a simple and lucid manner by the learned deputy registrar and reads as follows:

"It is clear from the 3rd defendant's application that the application is made pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of the Rules of the High 1980. The Plaintiffs are thus made aware of the relevant rules relied upon by the 3rd Defendant. The rule with regard to intitulement and the rationale underlying such requirement is to give notice to the opposing side the relevant rules of Court or statute relied upon. Therefore the issue of non-intitulement in the 3rd Defendant's application is not a ground to strike out the 3rd Defendant's application.

On the Plaintiff's objection to the application being made under the various paragraphs of O 18 r 19 and places reliance on the case of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Leong Choong Shin, [1997] 5 MLJ 17, I am agreeable with the learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant that an application under O 18 r 19 can be premised on one or more of the various paragraphs in the said order, subject however to affidavit evidence being disregarded when considering ground (a). The mandatory provision of O 18 r 19(2) cannot be ignored. It was held in Malayan United Fin