Clement Skinner J:

This is an appeal by MBf Finance Berhad ("the appellant") against the decision of the learned magistrate who, on 24 February 2000, set aside a judgment in default of appearance that had been entered against the second defendant Tiong Kieng Seng ("the respondent") on 11 March 1999. Costs were also awarded to the respondent.

The appellant had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with one Kayacom Resources Sdn Bhd ("the first defendant") of which the respondent is a director. Together with another director, he stood as guarantor to the hire-purchase transaction. On 2 November 1998 the appellant commenced these proceedings against the first defendant, the respondent as second defendant and the other guarantor as third defendant.

The summons was fixed for hearing on 11 March 1999 and the sum claimed against the defendants therein was RM23,775.50. In the guarantee and indemnity executed by the respondent on 19 August 1996, he gave his address as 1L, Jalan Emplan, 96000 Sibu. In fact, the first defendant as well as the third defendant gave that same address as their addresses in the hire-purchase agreement and guarantee respectively. There is no evidence, and I do not think there is any dispute that as at the date this action was commenced, the respondent had not informed or notified the appellant that he had changed his address from that stated in the guarantee.

Treating that address as the respondent's last known address, the appellant effected service of the summons on him by sending it by AR registered post addressed to 1L (1st floor), Jalan Emplan, 96000 Sibu. When the appellant's solicitors delivered the letter containing the summons to the postal authorities for posting, it was delivered together with several other letters and so the appellant's solicitors were given a receipt issued by the Post Office, Sibu, dated 10 November 1998, acknowledging that it had received for posting, amongst others, the appellant's letter dated 9 November 1998 which enclosed the summons to be sent to the respondent at the aforementioned address. In view of the issues raised in this appeal, it will be necessary to give a brief description of this receipt. It bears the heading "Pos Malaysia Berhad" under which appear in bold print the words "Kiriman Banyak Barang-Barang Berdaftar". The particulars stated in the body of the receipt show who the sender of the letter is, who the addressee is and his address, what registration number is assigned to the letter to be delivered and how much postage has been paid. At the bottom of the document, the following words appear "Tandatangan Pegawai Menerima Pejabat Post ... and "Cap Tarikh Pejabat Pos". At the top right hand of the receipt appear the words in brackets (Pos-R&P1B). I shall refer to this receipt as the "Pos-R&P1B receipt". It is obviously intended to acknowledge that the items mentioned therein have been received for posting in the manner therein described ie, AR registered post or registered post.

The appellant also produced a second receipt issued by the postal authorities showing that the AR registered letter it had sent to the respondent had been acknowledged as received by him on 11 November 1998. I will give a brief description of the second receipt. It bears the heading "Pos Malaysia Berhad" under which appear the words "Resit Serahan Benda Pos Berdaftar". At the top right hand corner of the receipt are the words in brackets (Pos-R&P2). The body of the receipt shows the post office from which the item delivered was sent out and to whom. At the bottom of the receipt are the words "Tandatangan Penerima dan No. Kad Pengenalan/Cop Rasmi" and "Tarikh Penyerahan". I shall refer to this receipt as the "Pos-R&P2 receipt". It is obviously a receipt that is intended to serve as an acknowledgment by the addressee that he has received the item mentioned therein.

On 11 March 1999 the respondent was not present when the summons was called on before the learned magistrate. Judg