Syed Agil SCJ:

[1] Earlier we dismissed this appeal with costs and made an order that the deposit of RM500 be paid to the respondent on account of costs. We considered the appeal on two main grounds, viz (1) the legal issue and (2) the factual issue.

[2] As regards (1), the question was whether the Court has a discretionary power to issue a mandatory injunction on an ex parte application under O 29 r 1(2) of RHC 1980. We applied the principles cited in several relevant authorities and decided on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court has such jurisdiction. With regard to (2), on the facts available before the learned Judge, we were satisfied that he had not wrongly exercised his discretion as to merit our interference.

[3] Before elaborating our grounds, we would like to deal with the facts so far disclosed in the affidavits and documents exhibited thereto.

[4] On 9 December 1983 Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd., a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 (the respondent), by a letter of offer to the appellant, a private company limited by shares under the Companies Act, approved the appellant's application and agreed to provide facilities by issuing lette