The plaintiffs, after having instituted an action against the defendants on 12 October 1988 vide Suit No KG 230 of 1988 (encl 2), filed in court a certificate of urgency dated 14 October 1988 through their counsel, certifying that the hearing of the ex parte summons-inchambers dated 14 October 1988 bearing Suit No KG 230 of 1988 (encl 5) be expedited and set out the grounds therein. The application is made under O 29 r 1(3) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('RHC').

One of the principal grounds for the request of an early hearing of the said ex parte summons-in-chambers is that the defendants intended to carry out a fresh auction sale in respect of the property which the plaintiffs alleged they had successfully bid and in fact the notice of sale to that effect had been issued (exh HKT-4). The plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to stop defendants from putting up the property in question for sale again. Hence the application is against both defendants (encl 5) for (a) an interim injunction to restrain the first and second defendants by themselves, servants or agents or appointees from conducting sale by way of a public auction, scheduled to be held on 20 October 1988 at 10 am in the Second Class Magistrate's Court, Kuching of the property specified in the schedules thereunder until ordered by the court to do otherwise; or (b) an order against the first and second defendants themselves, servants, agents or appointees for the stay of the intended auction sale of the said property which is scheduled to be held on 20 October 1988 until ordered by the court to do otherwise. It is supported by the affidavits of all the plaintiffs and one Chang Min Hen, the licensed auctioneer from the firm of CH Williams, Talhar, Wong & Yeo Sdn Bhd, who conducted the auction sale.

At the hearing of the said summons-in-chambers, at my prodding, Mr Cheng amended his prayer (a) as against the second defendant only and in respect of prayer (b) as against the first defendant only. In other words the application for an interim injunction against the first defendant was abandoned by the plaintiffs and I granted the order prayed as amended. Hence the order (encl 7) would appear to vary with the prayers as in the said summons-in-chambers. The plaintiffs gave the usual undertaking as to damages if they are unsuccessful in their action. The defendants entered appearance on 26 October 1988 (encl 9) and 22 November 1988 (encl 14) respectively. Extension of time to file the defence by the defendants was agreed to by counsel for the plaintiffs.

The background facts of the case so far as can be ascertained from the statement of claim are: The property in question is all that parcel of land together with the building thereon and appurtenances thereof situate at Ban Hock Road, Kuching, Sarawak, containing an area of 198.8 sq m, more or less, and described as lot 136 section 51 Kuching Town land district ('the said property').

The said property was sold by way of a public auction held on 20 September 1988 at about 10 am in front of the High Court precincts, Kuching pursuant to an order of the court dated 14 April 1988 on the application of the second defendant vide Originating Summons No KG 343 of 1986. The said auction was conducted by a licenced auctioneer from M/s CH Williams, Talhar, Wong & Yeo Sdn Bhd, Kuching, a firm of chartered surveyors and property consultants duly appointed by the court to conduct the said auction sale. The reserved price for the said property was fixed at $380,000 and the purchase price for the said property, at the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, was $428,000. The plaintiffs were announced as the successful bidders of the said property on 20 September 1988 for the said sum of $428,000. A memorandum of sale (exh HKT-1) was executed and the plaintiffs jointly paid $120,000 (exh HKT-2) into court as deposit towards the purchase price of the said property.

On or about 22 September 1988 it was alleged that the first defendant, in breach