Limitations on foreclosure actions are governed by section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, calculating from the breach of contract rather than notice issuance.

[1] We heard the appeal and reserved our decision. This decision is made and delivered pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as Justice Ramly Ali FCJ and Justice Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJ have since retired. This decision is therefore the decision of the remaining members of the panel. The decision is that the appeal is allowed with costs. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The order of the High Court is reinstated.

[2] I have prepared a judgment containing reasons for the aforesaid decision. Justice Rohana Yusuf FCJ has written a separate judgment giving different reasons for the aforesaid decision. Justice Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ agreed with the judgment of Justice Rohana Yusuf.

[3] The following is my judgment.

[4] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

[5] This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had, on 6 March 2018, allowed the defendant's appeal against the order for sale in respect of the land held under Hakmilik Geran 308417, Lot 47137, Mukim Tebrau, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor ("the said Land").

[6] The background facts leading to the present appeal are these. By a letter of offer dated 12 October 1999, the plaintiff offered the defendant and Thamil Selvem a/l Savarimuthu ("the co-Borrower"), a loan known as homexpress loan for the sum of RM185,320.00. A loan agreement was entered on 18 January 2000. Following the issuance of title to the said Property; and in place of an earlier deed of assignment granted by the defendant to the plaintiff, a Third Party Charge under the National Land Code (" NLC ") over the said Land was presented and registered on 24 December 2014, as consideration and security for the homexpress loan granted to the defendant and the co-Borrower. Pursuant to the terms of and conditions of the homexpress loan, the plaintiff made the loan available to the defendant, and the defendant and the co-Borrower utilised the loan. The defendant then defaulted in repayment of the loan. It is not disputed that since the last payment received by the plaintiff on 12 May 2003, no further payment was made by the defendant and/or the co-Borrower on the loan.

[7] On 20 November 2007, the plaintiff entered a default judgment against the defendant in Civil Suit No: MT4-22-659/2007 filed in the High Court at Johor Bahru. On 9 January 2012, by consent that default judgment was set aside. The Suit was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

[8] By a letter dated 29 January 2016, the plaintiff issued and served on the defendant the Notice of Default With Respect to a Charge in Form 16D pursuant to s 254 of the NLC to the defendant in which the defendant was given 30 days from the date of the Notice to remedy the breach of the charge. The period to remedy the breach in the charge stated in the Form 16D expired and the defendant failed to remedy the default. The plaintiff then filed the Originating Summons ("the OS") dated 8 August 2016 [JA- 24FC-1192-08-2016] in the High Court praying for an order for sale of the said land by Public Auction pursuant to ss 256 and 257 of the . On 29 November 2016, the High Court allowed the OS and made an order for sale of the said Land as prayed in the OS.

[9] The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed it on 6 March 2018 and reversed the decision of the High Court.

[10] The application for leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the plaintiff on the following qu