L.C. Vohrah J:

This is an application on the part of the defendants under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim as, inter alia, being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. It concerns only the second plaintiff as the first plaintiff has not contested it.

The brief facts relevant to this application are as follows. The plaintiffs were directors of Pandangan Selera Sdn. Bhd. (Pandangan) which was a customer of the first defendant. They became two of the three guarantors for banking facilities granted to Pandangan by the first defendant. When Pandangan defaulted in payments under the banking facilities and when the guarantors failed to make payment as provided for under the terms of the guarantees, the first defendant on 30 April 1987 commenced legal proceedings in this court by way of civil suit No. 23-621 of 1987 (the earlier suit) against them, Pandangan, and the third guarantor. The plaintiffs entered appearance and on 10 May 1988 the first defendant filed an application for summary judgment in the earlier suit against the plaintiffs and summary judgment was entered by the senior assistant registrar on 19 August 1989 against them in the sum of RM7,293,171.91 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests with effect from 27 April 1987 to the date of realisation and costs. They then appealed against the decision of the senior assistant registrar. The appeal was heard on the merits by Shanker J. over two days on 23 and 24 January 1990 and was allowed and they were granted leave to defend subject to the condition that they either pay into court the sum of RM1,500,000 or give security to the first defendant in a manner acceptable to it for the payment of such sum, the payment or security to be made within 4 weeks from 24 January 1990, the date on which the learned Judge granted the order for conditional leave. The plaintiffs failed to comply with this order and on 18 March 1990 the learned Judge made a further order giving final judgment to the first defendant against the plaintiffs in the sum of RM4,400,000 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests with effect from 18 September 1986 up to the date of realisation and costs. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court against both the conditional order made on 24 January 1990 and further order made on 18 March 1990. The Supreme Court heard and dismissed the appeal against the two orders on 20 February 1991 with costs to be taxed in favour of the first defendant. On 28 February 1991 after the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiffs filed a notice of motion in the Supreme Court for an order to set aside or vary the two orders of Shanker J. with consequential variation of the Supreme Court order dismissing the appeal on the ground of misrepresentation by the second defendant in the present suit, the Regional Manager (Southern Region) of the first defendant, in his second affidavit in support of the first defendant's application for summary judgment affirmed on 17 November 1988. This notice of motion was heard by the Supreme Court on 20 May 1991 when apparently upon a preliminary objection being taken that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier decision leave was granted to the plaintiffs to withdraw their application with an order for costs to be taxed in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit seeking to set aside the further order of Shanker J. of 18 March 1990 giving summary judgment against the plaintiffs, the cause of action appearing in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim which for easy reference is set down hereunder:

3. The plaintiffs aver that the said judgment dated 18 March 1990 was obtained by the first defendants by fraud by both the defendants and by the second defendant also making a false statement in an affidavit, particulars whereof are as fol