JUDGMENT

Clement Skinner J:

There are five applications before me. Before I say what they are, I shall state briefly the facts giving rise to them.

The plaintiff, a licensed bank, granted overdraft facilities to the first defendant in the sum of RM3,092,602.20. The second and third defendants stood as guarantors to the facility granted to the first defendant. The plaintiff, claiming that the first defendant was in breach of its obligations to repay the amounts due under the overdraft facility, and also that the second and third defendants were in breach of their obligations to pay the sums due under the guarantee, caused a writ of summons together with a statement of claim (hereafter together referred to as 'the writ') to be issued out against them on 30 March 2000.

I should mention here that as the writ was issued out prior to the amendment made to O. 6 r. 7(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC') which took effect on 22 September 2000, it remained valid for service in the first instance for 12 months beginning with the date of its issue ie, until 29 March 2001.

Upon issue of the writ the plaintiff attempted service of the same on the second defendant but says it encountered d