Mustapha Hussain J:

[1] Grounds of decisions on the defendants' application by summons-in-chambers to transfer the whole proceedings to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur pursuant to s 23 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - (summons-in-chambers dated 14 August 1989 - Encl (24)).

[2] The 2nd to the 5th defendants are guarantors guaranteeing the payment of all dues on the RM1.2 million credit facilities given by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant company Melewar Holding Sdn Bhd They executed the guarantee on 17 June 1980 before a solicitor in Kuala Lumpur.

[3] The credit facilities of RM1.2 millions were also secured by a charge of Lot 926 EMR 849 Mukim Ampang Tinggi in Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan dated 11 September 1980.

[4] By the end of April 1988 the outstanding sum due and owing to the plaintiff bank by the 1st defendant amounted to RM2,644,704.59. Notice of demand was sent to the 1st defendant and also notices were sent to the guarantors.

[5] The 1st to the 5th defendants on 14 August 1989 applied by summons-in-chambers to have the proceedings transferred to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

[6] In the supporting affidavit the Secretary of the 1st defendant company stated that the plaintiff bank as well as the 1st defendant company have their registered offices in Kuala Lumpur.

[7] The agreement to accept the plaintiff bank's overdraft facilities by the 1st defendant was executed and made in Kuala Lumpur.

[8] The 2nd to the 5th defendants in their affidavits stated that they are staying in Petaling Jaya or Selangor. The agreement to accept the plaintiff bank's overdraft facilities was executed and made in Kuala Lumpur. The letters of guarantee on which the plaintiff bank is basing its claim was executed in Kuala Lumpur.

[9] And above all these, the 2nd to the 5th defendants said the cause of action arose in Kuala Lumpur.

[10] In reply, opposing the application by the defendants, the plaintiff bank's solicitor stated that the loan/overdraft facilities were sought by the defendants at the plaintiff bank in Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan. The application for the facilities was approved by the Kuala Pilah Branch and the acceptance was communicated to the plaintiff bank at Kuala Pilah. The money was disbursed by the Kuala Pilah Branch and the 1st defendant's account is still being operated by the plaintiff's Kuala Pilah Branch. The lands charged to the plaintiff bank as security are situated at Kuala Pilah.

[11] The breach of the contract i e, the failure of the defendants to pay or settle the outstanding sums due to the Kuala Pilah Branch occurred at Kuala Pilah.

[13] One thing is clear that the application for the loan/overdraft facilities was made and approved in plaintiff's Kuala Pilah Branch. The guarantees were forwarded by the Kuala Pilah Branch to the 2nd to 5th defendants who executed them in Kuala Lumpur and returned to and received by the Kuala Pilah Branch. The account of the 1st defendant was opened and still being kept in Kuala Pilah Branch of the plaintiff bank. The land that was charged as security for the loan/overdraft facilities is in Kuala Pilah. Everything except for the signing of the guarantees are in Kuala Pilah.

[14] Where then did the cause of action arise? The moneys were given out from the Kuala Pilah Branch and the 1st defendant the principal borrower failed to carry out its part of the contract in not repaying the money due from it to the Kuala Pilah Branch. In fact, on 17 July 1989 the balance due to the plaintiff bank amounting to RM3,006,173.13 cents was confirmed to the Kua