shall be presumed to have been effected at the time when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post. [13] The JD produced the track and trace from Pos Malaysia in his attempt to rebut the presumption of service by the JC. In the case of Lau Pick Huong v Soh Huang [2014] 8 CLJ 488, the presumption of service pursuant to Section 12 of the Interpretation Act was rebutted when the defendant produced the print out of the tracking shipments from the Pos Malaysia website. The JCs submit that a proper reading of Lau Pick Huong would show that the JD has failed to rebut the presumption. [14] [i] The question raised by the court in Lau Pick Huong was: “On reading the detailed result for registered no. RD252007225MY (p. 67 record of appeal) which is enclosed in the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s letter, it is stated there “06 August 2013 attempt to deliver and on 13 August 2013 attempt to deliver”. As of 13 August 2013 the letter containing the JID was still at the post office. Now I ask myself what actually is meant by attempt to deliver. Does this mean that the Pos Malaysia postmen had gone to the address of the Defendant and had attempted to deliver the registered post but that the Defendant either had refused to accept or was not around at the address when the attempt of service was made?” Now, the Concise Oxford Dictionary has this to say on attempt: “seek to achieve or complete (a task or action)”. It is clear that with the kind of report in the website, [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 9 Pos Malaysia had yet to complete the task of delivery of the letter addressed to the Appellant.” [ii] Applying the question raised by the Court in the case of Lau Pick Huong, it is evident from the track and trace exhibited by the JD that Pos Malaysia had done all that it could possibly do to deliver the letters to the JD by: a) making several attempts to deliver the cause papers for the execution proceedings at the JD’s first address and second address; b) on several occasions leaving the following notice at the JD’s first address and second address: “Delivery Attempted. Left a Delivery Arrangement Notice. Item will be kept for 7 days. Please contact 1-300-300-300 or the number on the Notice for Delivery arrangements.” [iii] The JCs submit that the above facts shows that the JD was clearly avoiding service of the cause papers for the execution proceedings when the JD chose not to respond to the notices left by Pos Malaysia. The JCs further submit that the JD finally accepted service of Proclamation of Sale at the JD’s second address despite the attempt on 17.12.2019. This is because by this time, the JD had constructive notice of the Proclamation of Sale for each of the three (3) properties when the respective Proclamations of Sale were posted (ditampalkan) [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 10 at the JD’s addresses, thereby compelling the JD to acknowledge the service of the Proclamations of Sale served by registered post. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER 45 RULE 7(2) AND ORDER 45 RULE 5 OF ROC [15] The JD’s submission that the cause papers are not in compliance with the above provisions of the ROC are a non-starter since the above rules only apply to applications for enforcement of a court order by way of committal proceedings. The present enforcement by the JCs is based on a monetary judgment and does not involve any committal proceedings. JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE [16] The JD contends that the Amended Judgment does not expressly contain the words that the JD was jointly and severally liable to the JCs. In paragraph 18 of his submission, the JD states as follows: “The Judgment states: Defendan Pertama dalam Guaman 25, 26 dan 27 dikehendaki memulangkan RM4, 150,658.00. The judgment has thus, in the ordinary course, to be a judgment imposing jointly liability or obligations on the two Defendants to meet the judgment sum together. (SIC).” As such, the JCs had a right to enforce only half the judgment sum against the JD in this case, minus the costs to be paid. However, [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 11 the execution and enforcement of the High Court judgment via an Order for Sale would simply be unenforceable as the said judgment is uncertain and ambiguous as the First Defendant in suits 25, 26 and 27 are different entities i.e. JD was the First Defendant in Suit 27 and Techno was the First Defendant in suit 25 and 26. [17] To support the above submission, the JD relies on the case of Sumathy Subramaniam v Subramaniam Gunasegaran & Another Appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 305, where the Court of Appeal held at paragraph 19 of the grounds that a plaintiff who becomes a judgment creditor is only entitled to seek recovery in equal proportion against each of the defendants. However, this decision has been superseded by the decision of the Federal Court in Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Edwin Cassian Nagappan [2021] 7 CLJ 823, where Nalini Pathmanathan FCJ, at paragraph (32) of her grounds, held: “This premise (referring to the reasoning in Sumathy above) is, with respect, flawed because it pre-supposes that liability is proportionate to the number of promisors, from the perspective of the creditor. In Sumathy, the position of the creditor was conflated with the position of the debtors or promisors inter se, as we have explained above.” Thus, it is clear that the decision in Sumathy is no longer good law. [18] The JD further submits that the judgment debt is said to be not conclusive and is unascertainable for the purpose of execution. The [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 12 judgment is also ambiguous and thus, simply not enforceable (see para 20 of the JD’s global submission in Enclosure 52). With respect, I find that this submission is misconceived for the following reasons: i. There is nothing ambiguous or unascertainable about the Amended Order. The Order is very clear as to amount to be paid and the party that is liable to pay. The wordings are: a) Defendan Pertama dalam Guaman 25, 26 dan 27 dikehendaki memulangkan jumlah sebanyak RM4,150,658.00 untuk kesemua kes kepada Plaintif dalam masa sebulan dari tarikh hari ini iaitu 12.08.2018. As to the amount to be divided between the JCs, that should be of no concern to the JD, so long as the full amount is paid to any JC. Once the full amount is paid to any JC, the JD would be discharged of his liability. [19] In any event, the JD has appealed the decision and the Judgment to the Court of Appeal, which duly dismissed the appeal. Likewise, the JD’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was not allowed. [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 13 [20] Had the Order been ambiguous or unenforceable as submitted by the JD, the Court of Appeal would have allowed the JD’s appeal. I am in full agreement with the submission of the JCs that in the absence of any order to set aside the Amended Judgment on the purported grounds of nullity or ambiguity and having exhausted all his rights to appeal against the Amended Judgment, the JD is now estopped from challenging the Amended Judgment by way of collateral proceedings in this application. CONCLUSION [21] For the reasons aforesaid, I dismiss this application as well as the JD’s other two applications in JA-36-20-07/2019 and JA-36-21-07/2019, since the applications are all based on identical grounds, with cost of RM2,000.00 subject to allocatur fees. Dated 24th September 2021 Signed, ………………………….. Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Johor Bahru Johor Darul Ta’zim Curia Advisari Vult [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 14 Counsel / Solicitors: For the Judgment Creditors: Nor Shahadah Binti Shaari Messrs Shukor Baljit & Partners Wisma Shukor Baljit 14-2, Jalan 13/48a Sentul Selatan 51100 Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur [Ref: LIT/ 46073/19/IND-JR (TJ) 2] [Ref: LIT/ 46074/19/IND-JR (TJ) 3] [Ref: LIT/ 46075/19/IND-JR (TJ) 4] For the Judgment Debtor : Sandra Segaran A/L Kanniappan Messrs Tay, Bernard & Cheong (Johor Bahru) No. 19A, Jalan Harimau Tarum Century Garden 80250 Johor Bahru Johor [Ref: TBC/LIT/3089/19/KS/BG/m] Cases Referred To: Tan Kim Hock v Huang Yann Chong [1991] 1 MLJ 343 Lau Pick Huong v Soh Huang [2014] 8 CLJ 488 Sumathy Subramaniam v Subramaniam Gunasegaran & Another Appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 305 [JA-36-17-07/2019 September 24, 2021 Before The Honourable Judicial Commissioner Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz 15 Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Edwin Cassian Nagappan [2021] 7 CLJ 823 Legislation Referred To: Order 46 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 Order 10 of the ROC Section 12 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 Order 47 rule 6(d) Order 45 rule 7(2) Order 45 rule 5