(delivering the judgment of the Court): The appeal before us involves only an issue as to the validity vel non of an order for the sale of land made by the Collector of Land Revenue, Kuantan on December 26, 1979 in Form 16H under section 263 of the National Land Code, 1965 ('the Code') after a similar order of sale after due enquiry under sections 261 and 262 of the Code had been made some three and a half years previously by another Collector on June 15, 1976. To avoid repetition, all references to statutory provisions in this judgment are in respect of the Code unless otherwise specifically indicated. Background of Proceedings

The facts of the matter, in so far as material for the determination of the issue in question, are that the respondent as the registered owner of lands situate in Pahang and comprised in 20 titles executed a charge thereon as security for a loan of $350,000 in favour of the appellant which was duly registered on November 8, 1974. As a result of the requisite steps taken by the appellant to enforce the charge in default of payment, the Collector of Land Revenue, Kuantan ('the Collector') held an enquiry pursuant to the provisions of sections 261 and 262 which was concluded on May 29, 1976, and he then made an order dated June 15, 1976 under section 263 in Form 16H ("the first order') for the sale of the lands by public auction on August 5, 1976, specifying the amount due to the appellant at the date of the order was $443,694.52 and fixing the reserve price at $507,000, but by an error set out in the schedule thereto only 12 instead of 20 titles as he should have. The appellant complained of the omission on June 22, 1976 and asked for rectification of this lapsus calami by the Collector who by a letter dated June 30, 1976 acknowledged the error and confirmed that the first order covered all the 20 titles.

The respondent filed on June 18, 1976 a notice of appeal against the first order (later substituted as required by the rules of court by a motion by leave of the court) founded on the rate of interest exigible whereupon the Collector purported to cancel the sale but in effect only postponed it as will be seen when we discuss the position in law. The appeal was however withdrawn on June 8, 1978 and the appellant's solicitors then requested the Collector to proceed with the sale by a letter dated December 20, 1978 followed by a reminder on December 21, 1979 in which the Collector was notified that the amount outstanding on September 30, 1978 was $590,939.04 with interest chargeable thereafter at $175 per diem. The Collector, whose office had by now been assumed by an entirely different person from the one who had held the enquiry and made the first order, then made and issued another order of sale dated December 26, 1979 under section 263 in Form 16H ('the second order') in which he purported to order the sale of the lands in question by public auction on January 31, 1980, specifying the amount due to the appellant as the same as that stated in the first order, namely $443,694.52, but fixing the reserve price this time at a higher figure of $562,000 and scheduling all the 20 titles.

On January 28, 1980 the Collector informed the appellant's solicitors by telephone that he was cancelling the sale as the respondent had tendered to him under section 266 the amount stated in the second order and he confirmed this intimation by a letter on February 6, 1980 to the effect that the respondent had paid to him the sum specified in the second order under section 266(1) and (2)(a). The appellant protested that that amount was in fact the sum due at the date of the first order and that there was accordingly no effective or valid tender by the respondent for the purposes of section 266. The substantive dispute between the parties is in relation to the interest accruing between the date of the first order and the tender made by the respondent, as the appellant's contention, as its solicitors clearly indica