Abdul Malik Ishak J:

[1] From the Court file, the following details were pieced together. On 24 December 1994, the plaintiff filed their writ enclosing therein the statement of claim (encl 2) wherein the plaintiff sought vacant possession of a portion of a piece of land held under Grant No: 26977, Lot No: 4271, Bandar Baru, Johor Bahru ('the said land') which was occupied by the defendant together with general damages, interest and costs. An affidavit of service in encl 4 showed that the writ and the statement of claim had been duly posted to the defendant by way of an A r registered letter on 23 January 1995. A memorandum of appearance in encl 6 dated 18 January 1995 was filed by T/n Yacob & Rakan-Rakan for the defendant. On 21 March 1995, M/s Leng & Co for the plaintiff filed a "perakuan segera" in encl 8 to expedite the hearing of a summons-in-chambers that was filed on the same day as reflected in encl 10 and, briefly, that summons-in-chambers sought summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the High , 1980 ('RHC') for vacant possession of the said land together with general damages, interest and costs. Enclosure 10 was supported by an affidavit of Wong Chan Thong affirmed on 21 March 1995 (encl 9) which was also filed on 21 March 1995. The defendant changed his solicitors on 7 April 1995 (encl 13) wherein T/n A Singh took over the affairs of the defendant. Enclosure 13 was filed on 12 April 1995. On 22 May 1995, encl 10 came up for hearing before the Senior Assistant Registrar ('SAR') and the record shows that Mr Ng Chew Hor appeared for the plaintiff while Mr Awtar Singh appeared for the defendant. The SAR did not proceed with the hearing of encl 10 as Mr Awtar Singh applied for an adjournment to file an affidavit in reply; consequently, the next date for hearing was fixed on 20 June 1995. Come 20 June 1995, the SAR was all ready to hear encl 10 and it transpired that only Mr Ng Chew Hor attended Court on that day. Mr Awtar Singh was not present and neither was the defendant and, consequently, the SAR gave an order in terms of the prayers in encl 10 and fixed 17 October 1995 for assessment of damages. Mr Awtar Singh must have been jolted to reality and he quickly filed an application by way of a summons-in-chambers in encl 18 to set aside the order of the SAR dated 20 June 1995. In support of encl 18, Mr Awtar Singh affirmed an affidavit dated 23 June 1995 in encl 17 wherein he explained his absence on 20 June 1995. Enclosure 18 was duly heard by the SAR on 14 August 1995. This time Mr Awtar Singh appeared for the defendant; in attendance too was Mr Ng Chew Hor who acted for the plaintiff. Mr Ng Chew Hor was magnanimous enough to concede to encl 18 and the SAR forthwith gave judgment in terms of the prayers in encl 18. A new date for the hearing of encl 10 was fixed and this was on 4 October 1995. In due course, an order to that effect was extracted as reflected in encl 25.

[2] It was only on 18 October 1995 that Mr Awtar Singh filed an affidavit in reply (encl 27) in response to the affidavit of Wong Chan Thong in encl 9. It is pertinent to point out that though Mr Awtar Singh affirmed that affidavit in reply in encl 27 yet there was no indication as to when he affirmed it. Be that as it may, it is safe to say that Mr Awtar Singh had received instructions from the defendant before encl 27 was filed. On 4 October 1995 when encl 10 was scheduled to be heard before the SAR, Mr Awtar Singh sought for an adjournment, and it was readily granted by the SAR who then fixed 19 October 1995 as the next date for hearing. On 19 October 1995, the SAR heard arguments by both parties in regard to encls 10, 9 and 27 and adjourned the matter for decision on 30 October 1995 when the SAR finally gave judgment to the plaintiff in regard to encl 10 with a consequential order that a date would be fixed for assessment of general damages.

[3] Aggrieved by the decision of the SAR, Mr Awtar Singh duly filed a notice of appeal to the Judge-