Only two issues were raised by the first, fourth and fifth defendants in their appeal against an O 14 judgment entered against them on 19 May 1987. The first is the service of the notices of demand on them, dated 1 October 1986.

At the material time, the first defendant was a customer of the plaintiff and they are sued for the non-repayment of two fixed loan facilities granted by the plaintiff pursuant to two loan agreements dated 23 July 1981 and 25 March 1982. The fourth and fifth defendants were directors of the first defendant and they are sued in their capacities as guarantors for the repayment of the two fixed loans pursuant to two guarantees dated 27 February 1982 and 8 March 1982.

From the plaintiff's own documents, it is clear that the notice of demand dated 1 October 1986 although addressed to the first defendant, was acknowledged to have been received by a company called Sri Alam Sdn Bhd, who is in no way connected to these proceedings.

Under cl 8 of the two guarantees executed by the fourth and fifth defendants, service of the notice of demand on them may be effected in one of two ways, ie by personal service or by posting the notice through the post at the addresses mentioned in the guarantees or their last known addresses and such notice shall be deemed to be served on the day following that on which it was posted. Thus if posting is preferred, this can be done by ordinarily posting the notices to the addresses of the fourth and fifth defendants as stated in the guarantees and the notices are deemed to have been served on them a day after they are posted.

In this instant case, rather than sending the notices by ordinary post, the solicitors for the plaintiff chose to send them by way of AR registered post and by doing so, the plaintiff has varied cl 8 of both guarantees. By so choosing, the plaintiff has also burdened themselves with the added responsibility of seeing that the AR cards shall be returned to them duly acknowledged by the fourth and fifth defendants, for there to be proper service of such notices on them. In this case both the AR cards were returned with the endorsements 'kembali tidak boleh dituntut'. As there is no proper and effective service of such notices on the fourth and fifth defendants, this in itself affords a defence to both of them.

The other issue raised is non-compliance of s 4 of the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949, the effect of which is to render evidence on the entries of the first defendant's accounts kept by the plaintiff inadmissible. The plaintiff's solicitors sought to remedy their omission by filing an affidavit to comply with the requirements of s 4 on the day the appeal was heard. Since the appeal before me was in the nature of a rehearing, I had considered that the plaintiff had done whatever was necessary to remedy their omission, and this should not be taken against them, even though such remedy was made at the eleventh hour. Be that as it may, the fact still remains as to the effectiveness of the notices of demand that had been issued against the first, fourth and fifth defendants and as this is a triable issue, I had allowed their appeal with costs.