This is an application by the third and fourth defendants to set aside judgment in default of appearance obtained by the plaintiff on 20 December 1984 against them.

The application was heard in chambers. After reading the affidavits and after hearing the submissions of counsel for the defendants and for the plaintiff, I dismissed the application with costs.

On the application of counsel for the defendants, I adjourned the matter into open court for further argument.

After the hearing in open court, Mr Chandran, counsel for the defendants, conceded that the judgment obtained by the plaintiff was a regular judgment. The question for the court to consider now is whether there is an affidavit of merits, that is an affidavit stating facts showing a defence on the merits. ( Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473 and Bank Bumiputra Malaysia v Majlis Amanah Ra'ayat [1979] 1 MLJ 23.

On the question of defence on the merits, Mr Chandran asked the court to consider only one point, viz the question of undue influence. Before considering this point I think it is relevant to set out the facts briefly.

The plaintiff is at all material times a banker carrying on business at its head office at No 11A, Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur. The first and second defendants were at all material times partners of a firm carrying on business under the firm's name of Syarikat Samaria Supply with its registered address at No 8B, lot B15, Kompleks Batu, Jalan Murai Satu, Kuala Lumpur. They were at all material times the customers of the plaintiff. By a letter of guarantee executed by the first and second defendants on 22 April 1982 and by a second letter of guarantee executed by the third and fourth defendants on the same date, the four defendants agreed to guarantee payment of all moneys due and payable by Syarikat Samaria Supply to the extent of $30,000 for principal together with interest, commission and bank charges. In pursuance of the letters of guarantee the plaintiff made advances to Syarikat Samaria Supply, which together with interest and banking charges amounting to $30,791.87 as at 12 December 1983 with further interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% pa with monthly rests from 1 December 1983 to the date of realization. The plaintiff, through their solicitors, demanded payment of the said sum due but the defendants failed to pay the said sum.

I shall now examine the affidavits filed by the third defendant. In her affidavit affirmed on 16 March 1985 (third defendant's first affidavit), the third defendant averred that the first defendant called at her residence at No 507, Taman Melawati, Ulu Kelang, and produced a blank guarantee agreement and used undue influence to execute the guarantee agreement without the presence of any witness. The amount to be guaranteed was not stated in the guarantee agreement. She went on to state: 'I have to stand as a guarantor for the loan applied by the first and second defendants without any explanation of the contents to me ... '. She said that she was 'stunned' and 'greatly troubled' when on 14 February 1985 she was served with a copy of the judgment in default of her appearance which had been obtained against her. She said that she had a good defence on the merits.

In her second affidavit (third defendant's second affidavit) affirmed on 20 August 1985, the third defendant reiterated what she said in her first affidavit, that is she executed a blank guarantee agreement under the undue influence of the first defendant. She said that she insisted that the guarantee agreement be executed in the presence of the bank's representative but the first defendant, 'by his misrepresentation', told her that he would make the proper arrangement for the loan and that she had to execute the guarantee agreement only by attesting her signature and the rest would be filled up by the first defendant.

I shall next consider the fourth defendant's affidavit. In her affidavit affirmed on 16 March 1985 (fourth defendant's first affi