Zakaria M. Yatim J:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar, who allowed the defendant's application to set aside judgment in default of defence entered against the defendants.

The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia and having its principal office at 21st. Floor, Menara Boustead, 69, Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur. The defendants are partners trading under the name of M/s. Khoo Khoon Seng with a business address at No. 12, Kota Sarang Semut, 06800 Alor Setar, Kedah.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants, as stated in the statement of claim, is for the sum of RM317,072.18 being the balance sum due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants at the defendants' request.

On 23 April 1992 the plaintiff obtained judgment in default of defence against the defendants for the sum of RM317,072.18. Puan Aishah, Counsel for the defendants agreed that the default judgment was a regular judgment. Both Puan Aishah and Miss Charanjit Kang, Counsel for the plaintiff confined their arguments to the question of merits.

Puan Aishah raised three points to show that there were merits in the defence. The first point was that the plaintiff had no locus standi to bring the present action against the defendants. The second point was that the defendants did not accept the plaintiff's accounts. She also said that some of the plaintiff's accounts were not received by the defendants. The third point was that the cheques referred to by the plaintiff were not pleaded in the statement of claim.

On the question of locus standi, the plaintiff was appointed the sole distributor of the products of Reckitt & Colman Overseas Ltd. by virtue of an agreement concluded between the plaintiff and Reckitt & Colman on 1 July 1988. Under the agreement the plaintiff purchased all the products for distribution from Reckitt & Colman. In its affidavit, (Encl. 10A), the plaintiff said the products were sold to the defendants after they were purchased from Reckitt & Colman. I have examined all the invoices exhibited to Encl. 10A and I find that they were issued by the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has the locus standi to bring the action against the defendant.

With regard to the second point Miss. Kang referred to Exh. A3, the statement of accounts. I have examined the statements of accounts. They are addressed to the defendants and at the bottom of the statement are written; "All cheques to be crossed and drawn to order of Boustead". All the accounts bear the signature of the defendant. The cheques exhibited to Encl. 10A are all issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. This means that the accounts were received by the defendants. In my view the second point raised by Puan Aishah has no merit at all.

With regard to the third point Miss Kang submitted that the plaintiff's claim was not based on the cheques but on the accounts exhibited to Encl. 10A. I agree with Miss Kang's submission. In para. 3 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff's claim is clearly based on the accounts and not on the cheques or the dishonored cheques. Paragraph 3 states:

3. The plaintiff claim against the defendants is for the sum of RM317,072.18 being the balance sum due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants at the defendants request particulars of which are well known to the defendants.

After considering all the evidences and the arguments of both Counsel, I was satisfied that the defence had no merits. In the circumstances I allowed the appeal with costs.