1. ) Hee Kee Liong v Pjs Tyre Auto Service Sdn Bhd (BA-24NCvC-354-02/2025)

HEE KEE LIONG (No. K/P.: 760820-10-5433)

HEE CHUN KEET (No. K/P.: 780219-14-6451) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN PJS TYRE AUTO SERVICE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199501031950 / 361156 – V) ... DEFENDAN S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant had trespassed the Plaintiffs’ land registered as HS(M) 10767 PT 7896 Kg Seri Kembangan, Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“Plaintiffs’ Land”).

The Plaintiffs’ Land is adjacent to the Defendant’s land registered as HS(D) 191004 PT 616, Mukim Pekan Serdang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“Defendant’s Land”).

Vide Enclosure 25, the Defendant intended to add Lee Mee Ha, the previous proprietor of the Defendant’s Land, as a co-defendant in this Originating Summons.

Enclosure 25 was made pursuant to Order 15 rule 16(2)(b)(ii) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Courts 2012.

On 27 August 2025, I heard oral submissions from both parties.

After considering all cause papers, written submissions, and oral submissions, I dismissed Enclosure 25 with cost of RM3,000.00. S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A

I will now furnish my grounds of decision with regard to the dismissal of Enclosure 25.

According to the Defendant, Lee Mee Ha should be made a co-defendant in this Originating Summons, among others, because of the following reasons:

there was nothing mentioned in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 12 March 2024 entered into between the Defendant and Lee Mee Ha (“SPA”) about any trespass on the Plaintiffs’ Land by Lee Mee Ha, the previous proprietor of the Defendant’s Land;

there was no information provided by Lee Mee Ha about a tenancy agreement between Lee Mee Ha and Fong Wai Kit (Exhibit PJS-1 of Enclosure 9), which permitted the latter to operate a food restaurant named ‘Restoran Tai

there was no information provided by Lee Mee Ha that a particular part of ‘Restoran Tai Hou’ had encroached the Plaintiffs’ Land; S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A

there was no notification or anything mentioned in the SPA that Lee Mee Ha and/or her family had erected fencing and structures on the Plaintiffs’ Land;

there was no notification or anything mentioned in the SPA that the fencing and structures were still placed in the encroached area;

based on the misrepresentations or breach of contract of the SPA by Lee Mee Ha, the Defendant should not be held liable for the continuing trespass occurring during Lee Mee Ha’s proprietorship of the Defendant’s Land;

based on the misrepresentations or breach of contract of the SPA by Lee Mee Ha, all expenses and damages must be borne by Lee Mee Ha; and

if Lee Mee Ha is added as a co-defendant, all parties and evidence would be made available to this Court.

I am of the view that for the purpose of Enclosure 25, the foregoing contentions by the Defendant cannot hold water. S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A

Firstly, the Defendant’s complaint against Lee Mee Ha was based on misrepresentations or a breach of contract of the SPA as shown in the following affidavits:

in paragraph 8 of Enclosure 26, Loo Thiam Fatt, the Defendant’s director, said the following about Lee Mee Ha’s misrepresentations and breach of the SPA: “Berdasarkan representasi Lee Mee Ha tersebut di dalam surat perjanjian bertarikh 12.03.2024 saya telah dinasihati dan sesungguhnya mempercayai Lee Mee Ha tersebut harus dijadikan sebagai suatu pihak di dalam tindakan ini untuk menjamin kehilangan, kerugian dan/atau kemungkiran bagi pihak saya.” (emphasis added)

in paragraph 5(ii) of Enclosure 37, Loo Thiam Fatt reiterated the complaint of misrepresentations and breach of contract of the SPA on the part of Lee Mee Ha: “Lain-lain perenggan 7 juga tidak dinafikan untuk menjamin kepentingan defendan dan dilindungi oleh Lee Mee Ha berdasarkan salah nyata atau representasi atau waranti yang dibuat melalui perjanjian jual beli.” (emphasis added) S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A 7 11. Secondly, the disputes that the Defendant may have against Lee Mee Ha under the SPA are purely private matters between them. The Plaintiffs are not privy to the SPA. The Defendant can initiate a separate civil action against Lee Mee Ha for misrepresentations or breach of contract of the SPA.

Thirdly, this Originating Summons is not based on any dispute arising from the SPA. This Originating Summons is based on the allegation of continuing trespass on the Plaintiffs’ Land by the Defendant (Karuppannan s/o Chellapan v Balakrishnen s/o Subban [1994] 1 MLRA 383; MTB Rubber Sdn Bhd v Wangi KMB Bhd [2007] 4 MLRH 848; Sin Heap Lee-Marubeni Sdn Bhd v Yip Shou Shan [2005] 1 MLJ 515; Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2021] 1 MLJ 322; Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022]

Fourthly, this case involves the issue of continuing trespass, and Lee Mee Ha is no longer the proprietor of the Defendant’s Land. In this Originating Summons, the continuing trespass only concerns the Defendant as the new proprietor of the Defendant’s Land. S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A

Based on the foregoing analysis, Lee Mee Ha is not a proper party to be named as a co-defendant in this Originating Summons (Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong [1993] 2 MLJ 143; Dr YG Tan Jurutera Perunding Sdn Bhd v Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd [2018] 5 MLJ 245).

There are no merits in Enclosure 25.

I therefore dismiss Enclosure 25 with cost of RM3,000.00, subject to payment of allocatur fees. Dated 29 August 2025 SGD HELMI BIN HAMZAH JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM NEGERI SELANGOR S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A Counsel for the Plaintiffs : Mr. Adam Chia Yau Hoong (Messrs. Adam Chia & Co.) Counsel for the Defendant : Mr. Saravanan a/l Subramaniam (Messrs. Saravanan & Nasriq) S/N 3ojE5Ptoa0yLTib9iMsA7A