JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul JC:

This case which commenced as a claim for money advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant on an overdraft account climaxed in a deliberation of the admissibility of certain documents under s. 32(1)(b) and s. 73A of the Evidence Act 1950 and the mode of service of a notice of demand in the course of the trial. Both the sections shall hereafter be referred to as "Section 32(1)(b)" and "Section 73A" and the Evidence Act 1950 as "the Act".

The plaintiffs by their writ dated 9 January 1991 instituted proceedings against the defendant for the recovery of a sum of $1,192,484.83 as of 30 November 1990. In substance the case for the plaintiffs is that they had granted a loan to the defendant by way of an overdraft account in the sum of RM500,000. The terms and conditions governing the loan are contained in the Letter of Offer dated 20 March 1984 the material parts of which read as follows:

Re: Application for a secured loan of $500,000.00 on overdraft basis

We are pleased to inform you that your application for a secured loan of $500,000.00 on overdraft basis has been approved subject to the following terms and conditions and those to be incorporated in a formal