JUDGMENT

Azhar Mohamed J:

[1] This was an appeal by the defendant in encl. 42 against the decision of the learned deputy registrar dismissing the defendant's application in encl. 24 to set side the ex parte order dated 10 September 2004. In order to understand this appeal, here are the factual backgrounds in outline as well as the sequence of events leading to it.

[2] The plaintiff was a property development company. The defendant was a licensed financial institution. On 25 March 2004 the plaintiff filed a writ of summons and statement of claim herein against the defendants. It appears that the plaintiff's cause of action was based on the defendant's alleged breach of contract arising from the non-disbursement of a banking facilities and/or the purported sale of the facilities to Danaharta Urus Sdn. Bhd. In this action the plaintiff prayed, inter alia, for the following orders:

a) Damages for breach of contract for the amount of RM110,990,476.20;

b) General damages against the defendant for negligence;

c) Exemplary damages;

d) Pre-judgment interest pursuant to s. 11, Civil Law Act 1956 as this Honourable Court deems fit and just;

[3] The law says that the writ of summons may not be