Thean J

This is an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar in which, on an application by the 1st defendant under Order 45 Rule 11 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1970, he refused to grant a stay of execution of the judgment entered against the 1st defendant on October 25, 1984, pending the outcome of the trial of plaintiffs' claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, to whom unconditional leave to defend this action had been granted. The circumstances that led to the 1st defendant's application are as follows. The plaintiffs commenced the present action against the three defendants claiming for a sum of $78,215.57 owing as at September 11, 1984 and interest thereon. Their claim against the 1st defendant is based on a lease of equipment dated November 8, 1982 under which the plaintiffs leased to the 1st defendant certain machines (collectively called "the equipment") at a rent and on terms and conditions therein provided. By a guarantee in writing executed on November 8, 1982 or thereabout, the 2nd and 3rd defendants guaranteed the obligations of the 1st defendant under the lease, and accordingly, in this action the plaintiffs claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants as the guarantors. The writ of summons was served on the 1st defendant and, as no appearance was entered on its behalf, judgment in default of appearance was entered against it on October 25, 1984 in the sum of $78,215.57, interest thereon amounting to $1,689.19 up to the date of judgment and $450 costs. That judgment was properly entered and there is no dispute as to the validity of the judgment.

Subsequent to the judgment, several events occurred which, so far as material, are these. First, the plaintiffs on November 2, 1984 repossessed the equipment leased to the 1st defendant, and immediately thereafter instructed Asian Appraisal Co. Pte. Ltd. to prepare a valuation of the equipment. The valuers prepared a report on November 14, 1984 in which they valued the equipment as follows:

(a)Fair Value—— $56,000 . . . . . .

(b) Fair Market Value—— $33,000. . .

Then, on February 22, 1985, a substantial payment of $48,483.95 was made to the plaintiffs towards satisfaction of the judgment. Up to that point of time the writ had not been served on the 2nd and 3rd defendants, and the writ was served on them by way of substituted service only in March 1985. Thereafter, nothing eventful in relation to this action occurred through 1985, except that the plaintiffs sold the equipment in two parts on June 21, 1985, and September 23, 1985, respectively, and realised a total sum of $14,600.

In the early part of 1986, this action was resuscitated; both parties took further steps; the plaintiffs on February 12, 1986, took out an application for summary judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for a sum of $23,534, which the plaintiffs said was the balance sum still due, and for interest and costs, and the 1st defendant on April 16, 1986, took out an application under Order 46 Rule 10 for an order that the judgment entered against it had been satisfied. Both applications came on for hearing before the Deputy Registrar on July 7, 1986. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that on a proper computation of the various amounts based on a correct and true reading of the various provisions of the lease of the equipment, there was no balance owing to the plaintiffs under the lease, and accordingly, in respect of the plaintiffs' application, unconditional leave to defend the action ought to be given to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, and in respect of the 1st defendant's application, entry of satisfaction of the judgment ought to be made. The Deputy Registrar in respect of the plaintiffs' application ordered that judgment be entered against the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the sum of $22,352.04, with interest thereon and costs, and that the 2nd and 3rd defendants be given unconditional leave to defend the balance of the claim of $1,182.20; as regards the 1st defendant's applic