Mahadev Shankar J:

In this case I had granted conditional leave to defend to the third defendant in an O. 14 application. The third defendant is a guarantor to a leasing agreement.

He applied for further arguments in open Court.

The total rental payable under the leasing agreement was RM229,759.84. This was payable in thirty-six instalments. The first defendant, the principal debtor under the leasing agreement, defaulted in making the first payment from 9 May 1984. The first defendant continued in default. On 17 November 1984 the first defendant went into receivership under a debenture. On 27 November 1984 the plaintiffs repossessed. But they did not succeed in selling the equipment until 27 March 1986.

After repossession they sued for the thirty-five remaining instalments unpaid, interest charges on these unpaid amounts up to the sale i.e., on 27 March 1986 and they claimed for various other charges.

Mr. Philip Nainan of Counsel took the following points as to why unconditional leave should be granted.

Firstly it was submitted that under s. 226 of the Companies Act, leave of the Court should have been obtained before this suit was filed. Since it was not, the entire actio