Ahmadi Asnawi JC:

[1] This appeal was lodged by the appellant (3rd defendant) against the decision of the senior assistant registrar who had on 25 April 2003 entered summary judgment against the 3rd defendant in the sum of RM210,734.25 and RM1,334,047.57 as at 28 February 2002, with interests and costs under O. 14 of the Rules of the High 1980 .

[2] The brief facts of this case are as follows. The plaintiff (respondent) approved and granted various banking facilities to Victory Industries (M) Sdn Bhd (1st defendant) for a sum of RM 6,000,000 subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the letters of offer dated 22 June 1999 and 2 July 1999. In relation thereto, the borrower (Victory Industries) through its directors (2nd and 3rd defendant) accepted the banking facilities and has given the director's resolution. Consequently, both the said directors signed the facilities agreement dated 16 July 1999 to secure the said facilities, and on the same date a letter of set-off was executed by the said directors. Briefly, the 2nd and 3rd defendants guaranteed the repayment of all moneys becoming payable and owing by the first defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to the said terms and conditions. The moneys under the said loans were duly released. In the event, the first defendant defaulted in the repayment of the said loans amounting to RM208,692.93 for the overdraft facilities, and RM1,319,384.99 for the bankers acceptance. Separate notices of demand dated 5 February were issued to the defendants, but not responded by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit against all the defendants on 14 Mac 2002, and on 22 October 2002 the plaintiff filed a summons in chambers under O. 14 Rules of the High 1980 for summary judgment. The matter came before the learned senior assistant registrar who on 25 April 2003 granted an order in terms of the application. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned senior assistant registrar, the 3rd defendant filed this appeal.

[3] The legal position is clear in that the only issue before the Court in an application under O. 14 of the Rules of the High is whether there are triable issues meriting a full trial for its determination. Therefore, what needs to be proven by the defendant in an O. 14 application is to show that there is a triable issue or issues that ought to be heard in full. A single issue meriting trial is sufficient to deny the applicant a judgment under O. 14 (per Shaik Daud Ismail in South East Asia Insurance Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia ; [1998] 1 CLJ 1045; [1998] 1 AMR 657 . In short, to be entitled to defend one's case, he must be able to raise a triable or arguable issue that ought to be set down for trial. In Abdullah Rohani v. Punca Klasik Sdn Bhd; [2004] 1 CLJ 773; [2004] 2 AMR 1 , Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA said:

2

We remind ourselves that this appeal arises from a summary judgment under O. 14 of the RHC 1980 . It is trite law that in such an application the onus on the defendant (appellant) to be entitled to defend the action in a fall trial, is to satisfy the Court that "there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial ..." O. 14 r. 3(1) . Courts have described it as "arguable issue" or "triable issue". Thus in Voo Min En & Ors v. Leong Chung Fatt it was said that "... The issue raised must be an arguable issue." In Ng Hee Thong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd, [1995] 1 MLJ 281 , the Court of Appeal asked the question "Is there a bona fide triable issue?.

[4] However, before the defendant is required to prove a triable issue, there are preliminary requirements that must be fulfilled by the plaintiff for the purpose of O. 14 application. Those guidelines as elucidated by the Federal Court in the case of National Company for Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn. Bhd. are in the following terms:

We think it appropriate to remind ourselves once again that in every application under Order 14 th