Neal J:

A Summons in Chambers in the suit for an order that the Writ of Summons herein and all subsequent proceedings be set aside on the ground that the Statement of Claim was not signed by the plaintiff's solicitors and that the plaintiff do pay to the defendant the costs of and occasioned by this application, was heard before me in Chambers on the 17 August.

Mr. Yeo Kian Teck, appearing in support of the Summons, argued that the judgment of Mr. Syed Sheh Barakbah J in Maclaine Stokvis (MaIaya) Ltd. v. The Saloma Co. [1959] MLJ 241 (Civil Suit No. 9 of 1959) was authority for his submission that the service must be set aside as the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory provisions of O. 19 r. 4 as regards signature of the endorsement by the solicitors on record such endorsement being signed by the plaintiff in person.

Mr. Khong Kok Yat, in reply, argued that O. 19 r. 4 had no application and that it was sufficient compliance with the rules of the Supreme Court if the endorsement was signed by the plaintiff or his solicitor.

It is, in my opinion, relevant to note at this stage that the writ was a simple form of writ under O. 2 r. I with a statement of the nature of the claim endorsed and not a specially endorsed writ pursuant to O. 3 r. 6, whereas the writ dealt with by Mr. Syed Sheh Barakbah J in Civil Suit No. 9/59(1) was such a specially endorsed writ.

In Civil Suit No. 9/59 [1959] MLJ 241 Mr. Syed Sheh J Barakbah relied upon the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal in Cassidy & Co. v. M'Aloon, 32 LRI r. 368 as reported in the 1957 Annual Practice, p. 18. This report is not available to me but it is obviously based upon an interpretation of the last sentence of O. 19 r. 4, the applicability of which depends upon whether or not the endorsement is a pleading. This question came before the Court of Appeal in Anlaby & Ors. v. Praetorius, 20 QBD 764 where Fry LJ, said at p. 768:

We have, therefore, to consider whether a statement of claim was delivered in this case. If it was not, the time for delivering the defence ran from 26 January and the judgment was regular. I am of opinion that a statement of claim was delivered by the plaintiff when the writ was served on the defendant. O. xx, r. 1, I think, determines the point. It is: `Where the writ is specially indorsed under O. III, r. 6' (which was the case herein), `no further statement of claim shall be delivered, but the indorsement on the writ shall be deemed to be the statement of claim.' The words `no further statement of claim shall be delivered,' imply that the indorsement is a statement of claim and the succeeding words make it still more clear by providing that the indorsement `shall be deemed to be the statement of claim.' I am clearly of the opinion that the indorsement on the writ was a statement of claim, and, therefore, that r. 6 of O. XXI applied to the case.

With this statement of the law, Lopes LJ, agreed, at p. 770.

In the case before me, as was pointed out by Mr. Khong Kok Yat in his reply, the writ was a simple one issued under O. 2 r. 1 with an endorsement containing a statement of the nature of the claim made. In my opinion, the only interpretation to be placed upon O. 19 r. 4, read in conjunction with the remainder of the Order and the other Orders in the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1957, is that it applies only to pleadings. It has been held in Murray v. Stephenson, 19 QBD 60 that a writ is not a pleading. It should also be noted, as pointed out by Mr. Khong Kok Yat, that in the case before me the plaintiff has filed a separate Statement of Claim which complies with O. 19 r. 4. The writ with an endorsement of the nature of the claim complies, in his submission, with O. 3 r. 1, which latter rule differs from the English equivalent in that it has in addition "and shall be signed by the plaintiff or his solicitors." It is relevant to note that the wording of r. 1 differs from the relevant part of O. 19 r. 4, which latter permits signa