Mohamed Dzaiddin J:

On 14 June 1990 I granted plaintiffs' application for an order for sale of the charged properties belonging to the 1st defendant, but postponed making further orders under s 257(1) National Land Code . In the meantime, on 21 August 1990, on an application made on behalf of the defendants under O 56 r 2 Rules of the High 1980, I heard further argument on the matter.

I shall now deal with some of the new issues raised by Counsel. First, Encik Lee Kok Liang, for defendants No. 4 to 19 pointed out that I failed to consider the effect of para. (b) of s. 34 of the sale and purchase agreement. This paragraph states:

Immediately after this agreement shall have been executed by the parties hereto, the vendor will not subject the premises to any encumbrances without prior approval of the purchasers.

Counsel submitted that it is clear from the above section that prior approval of the purchasers is required before the premises is subject to any encumbrances. No such approval or consent was given by the purchasers (defendants). In response to the argument, Encik Kumar submitted that s 31 is quite explicit as the proviso gives the vendor the right to charge the said land