[2] As it was common ground that the order for sale aforesaid had neither fixed the auction date nor stipulated the amount actually due under the charge as required by s 257(1)(b) and (c) of the Code, respectively, we invited Counsel on both sides to argue, as a preliminary point of law, the question what were the legal consequences of such non-compliance.

[4] At the conclusion of the argument, we were unanimously of the opinion, that the provisions of s 257(1)(a) to (d) were mandatory, and as the order for sale in the present case had suffered from the defects herebefore mentioned, it was thereby invalidated.

[5] We would add, that insofar as there was a conflict of judicial opinion, as to the applicability of the provisions of O 83 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980, to an application for an order seeking enforcement of a charge registered under the Code, by way of an order for sale, as appeared from the judgments of Shankar J (as he then was) in Citi Bank v. Ibrahim Othman, [1994] 1 MLJ 608 on the one hand, and Abdul Aziz bin Mohamad J in Perwira Affin Bank Berhad v. Tan Tian Ser; [1995] 2 CLJ 133; [1995] 1 AMR 295 on the other, we preferred the reasoning and conclusion of Shankar J.

[6] In the result, we allowed the appeal with costs, both here and below and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The deposit was ordered to be refunded.