Lim Beng Choon J:

[1] By this originating summons dated 28 December 1987, the plaintiff applied to this Court for an order for sale by public auction of the land held under Lot 5, Seksyen 87A, Geran 5875 in the town of Kuala Lumpur (the said land) registered in the name of the defendant but charged to the plaintiff under Charge Presentation No 9590/85 Jilid 388 and Folio 56 which presentation was duly registered by the Pendaftar Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan on 24 June 1985. The application of the plaintiff was made pursuant to s 256(2) of the National Land Code 1965 and it had complied with the procedure for making the application as set out in O 83 of the Rules of High 1980. The charge over the said land was to secure the repayment of the loan amounting to RM3,500,000 granted by the plaintiff to one Laura Hauw Soei Yong (the borrower).

[2] In support of the application of the plaintiff for an order for sale of the said land by public auction, its Assistant General Manager filed an affidavit affirmed by him on 22 December 1987. In that affidavit the said Assistant General Manager explained about the creation and purpose of the charge, the failure on the part of the borrower to make the necessary repayment towards the loan, and the sending of the statutory notice in Form 16D by the plaintiff to the defendant. As the defendant had failed to remedy the breach mentioned in the said notice within the stipulated period the full amount of the loan with the aggregate interest in the sum of RM4,255,076.50 was as at 30 June 1987 due and payable to the plaintiff pursuant to the charge agreement.

[3] On 27 September 1988 the defendant applied to this Court by way of summons in chambers (encl 9) for an order, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, directing that the hearing of this originating summons of the plaintiff and all further proceedings in the present action be stayed until the disposal of the Civil Suit No: D1-23-2919-87 pending in the commercial division of the High Court Kuala Lumpur. From the affidavit in support of the defendant's application to stay affirmed by its former company secretary on 27 September 1988 (encl 10) and the supplementary affidavit affirmed by its present company secretary on 16 January 1990 (encl 19) the reasons for the defendant's application for a stay are as follows.

[4] Apparently the plaintiff in the present action instituted the Civil Suit No: D1-23-2919-87 in the commercial division of the High Court Kuala Lumpur (the said civil suit) against five parties as defendants namely the borrower, the three persons who guaranteed the repayment of the said loan granted by the plaintiff to the borrower and the defendant in the present action named as the fifth defendant in the said civil suit. The plaintiff in the said civil suit made an application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of High 1980. The O 14 application was heard by the relevant Senior Assistant Registrar of the Court (the SAR) who on 13 June 1988 allowed summary judgment to be entered against all the defendants in the said civil suit. Thereupon all the defendants in that suit appealed to the judge. Upon hearing the appeal in chambers the learned judge found in favour of the five defendants in the said civil suit and reversed the decision of the SAR. The plaintiff thereafter appealed against the decision of the learned judge to the Supreme Court on 4 January 1990 and the appeal is still pending before the Supreme Court. The defendant therefore contended that the matter before this Court should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court since the issues raised at the O 14 proceeding in the said civil suit and the issues raised in the present action were substantially the same namely that:

(1) the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue as the registration of the plaintiff under the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1948 is in violation of s 9 of the Banking Act 1973;

(2) the said loan advanced to the