JUDGMENT

Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J:

The appellants, who are the defendants in the main suit brought by the respondents as plaintiffs, appeal to the judge in chambers against the decision of the learned senior assistant registrar (the SAR) of 14 March 1999 granting leave to the respondents to re-amend their amended statement of claim. The main grievance of the appellants is that the leave ought not to have been granted as the re-amendment relates to the amended statement of claim which to the appellants was of no effect on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of O. 20 r. 9 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the 1980 Rules) it being amended beyond the period allowed by the rule without any leave being granted for them to do so. Rule 9 thereof states:

9. Where the court makes an order under this Order giving any party leave to amend a writ, pleading or other document, then, if that party does not amend the document in accordance with the order before the expiration of the period specified for that purpose in the order or, if no period is so specified, of a period of 14 days after the order was made, the order shall cease to have effect, without prejudice, however, to the power of the court to extend the period.

Leave for the respondents to amend the original statement of claim was granted by court on 3 April 1994 and the order is in encl. (24A). The order of the court did not specify the period within which they are to amend the pleading. Hence, the 14 day rule would apply under O. 20 r. 9 of the 1980 Rules. In this case, the last date for the respondents to do so was 17 April 1994. However, in this, the respondents filed the amendment only on 18 April 1994 as evidenced by the standard franking impression appearing on the amended pleading, a delay of one day. So, it is the contention of the appellants that the order of the court granting leave to the respondents has lapsed. As such, there was no valid amendment of the original pleading upon which this application for re-amendment is based. So, the learned SAR has erred in so granting this application of the respondents. Hence this appeal to the judgein-chambers.

The first amendment sought by the respondents, which was granted by the order of court of 3 April 1994, was in respect of those underlined in red. Those matters were indicated as such in this re-amendment application. The re-amendment parts were marked in green. The appellants contend that if the amendment which was in red is of no effect for non-compliance with O. 20 r. 9 for the reason given earlier, they ought to be expunged and if this is done, the proposed re-amendment underlined in green read with the original pleading would not make any sense to the pleading of the respondents as a whole. In the instant case, the re-amendment allowed by the learned SAR includes the offensive part in red. Hence, this application of the respondents for reamendment ought not to have been granted by the learned SAR.

For the respondents, it was contended that the learned SAR was right in the exercise of her discretion in granting leave over their application for the reamendment of the pleading as the first amendment was in order and has effect. The first amendment was done in time in compliance with the requirement of O. 20 r. 9 of the 1980 Rules. The argument is supported by the fact that after obtaining the court order of 3 April 1994 in respect of the first amendment, by a letter dated 7 April 1994 addressed to the assistant registrar of the High Court, the solicitors for the respondents sent two copies each of the amended pleadings with a Postal Order for RM20 being filing fees. That letter with the enclosures were received by the assistant registrar on 13 April 1994. However, the documents were formally filed on behalf of the respondents only on 18 April 1994 as evidenced by the standard franking impression appearing on the documents. So, as of 13 April 1994, the order of the court was carried out by the respondents