1. ) Peng Wei v 1. ) Ambang International Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-631-11/2023)

PENG WEI (No. Pasport: EG6218108)

WANG YAZHOU (No. Pasport: EE0032591) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

AMBANG INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD (No. Pendaftaran: 201901024595

MOH HIONG HUA (No. K/P: 890906-13-6471)

ZHANG GENLIN (No. Pasport: E21844877) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 10/04/2025 09:36:28 WA-22NCvC-631-11/2023 Kand. 89 S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT (Enclosures 43 & 46) INTRODUCTION [1] Enclosure 43 is an application by the Defendants under Order 42 Rule 13 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) (Enclosure 43) to set aside the order made by this Court on 13.03.2024 that dismissed the 2nd and 3rd Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim (Enclosure 21). In Enclosure 43, the Defendants also apply that I be recused from hearing Enclosure 21, as well as this Suit. [2] The prayers in Enclosure 43 are-

Bahawa Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 13-03-2024 yang menolak Notis Permohonan Defendan-defendan Ke-2 dan Ke-3 bertarikh 28-02-2024 (“Lampiran 21”) adalah batal, tidak sah dan diketepikan;

Bahawa Lampiran 21 didengarkan dan diputuskan di atas meritnya oleh Hakim atau Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang lain di Bahagian Sivil Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur;

Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Dr Suzana binti Muhamad Said menarik diri daripada mendengar guaman ini;

Guaman ini diarahkan untuk dipindahkan dan didengar oleh Hakim atau Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang lain di Bahagian Sivil

Kos; dan

Apa-apa relif lanjutan dan lain-lain relif yang Mahkamah yang Mulia ini anggap patut dan adil.”. [3] This Court allows only prayer (a) of Enclosure 43, thus, Enclosure 21 is fixed for a re-hearing on 10.03.2025. The rest of the prayers pertaining to the recusal is dismissed, hence, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ appeal. [4] Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs filed an application for judgment on the admission of facts by the Defendants under Order 27 Rule 3 of the ROC 2012 (Enclosure 46). The Plaintiffs are seeking reliefs against the Defendants based on the Defendants’ admissions as pleaded in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the Defence dated 22nd January 2024 (Enclosure 10) and the Defendants’ Affidavit (Enclosure 11). [5] The prayers for Enclosure 46 are- “(a) Bahawa Plaintif dibenarkan untuk memasukkan penghakiman terhadap Defendan-Defendan bagi amaun-amaun S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA berikut berdasarkan pengakuan Defendan-Defendan seperti yang diplidkan dalam perenggan 14 hingga 17 Pembelaan bertarikh 22 Januari 2024 (Lampiran 10) dan perenggan 16 Afidavit Jawapan yang diikrarkan oleh Defendan Kedua pada 22 Januari 2024 (Lampiran 11 ): i. Bagi jumlah RM1,202,850.00 mengenai F-26-2, The Manor; ii. Bagi jumlah RM922 ,388.00 mengenai Parcel No. 9 -13A, Parc 3; dan iii. Bagi jumlah RM937 ,588.00 mengenai Parcel No. 26 -09, Parc 3.

Bahawa Plaintif dibenarkan untuk memasukkan penghakiman terhadap Defendan-Defendan bagi faedah pembayaran lewat yang dikenakan oleh Desaria Property Sdn Bhd dan Titian Sama Sdn Bhd berdasarkan pengakuan Defendan-Defendan seperti yang diplidkan dalam perenggan 14 hingga 17 Pembelaan bertarikh 22 Januari 2024 (Lampiran 10) dan perenggan 16 Afidavit Jawapan yang diikrarkan oleh Defendan Kedua pada 22 Januari 2024 (Lampiran 11);

Segala kos bagi permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Defendan-Defendan; dan

Relif selanjutnya atau yang lain yang Mahkamah yang Mulia ini menganggap sesuai.”. [6] This Court allows Enclosure 46 with cost. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA BRIEF FACTS The Plaintiffs’ Version [7] In 2020, the Plaintiffs became acquainted with the 3rd Defendant (D3) through a friend in China. D3 told the Plaintiffs that he could assist in purchasing properties in Malaysia. [8] Based on trust, the Plaintiffs transferred money to D3, expecting that D3 would utilize the money to pay for the purchase price of the properties in Malaysia. [9] Thereafter, the 1st Defendant (D1) and Ambang Wawasan Properties Development Sdn Bhd (Ambang Wawasan) will issue official receipts to the Plaintiffs. All these official receipts will be signed by the 2nd Defendant (D2). [10] Subsequently, four (4) sale and purchase agreements were signed by the Plaintiffs with the following parties-No.

Desaria Property Sdn Bhd (Developer) Peng Wei (First Plaintiff) D-23-2, The Manor RM1,821,200.00

Desaria Property Sdn Bhd (Developer) Peng Wei (First Plaintiff) RM2,990,200.00 S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA F-26-2, The Manor

Ambang International Sdn Bhd (First Defendant) Peng Wei (First Plaintiff) Titian Sama Sdn Bhd (Developer) Parcel No. 9-13A, Parc 3 RM1,000,110.00

Ambang International Sdn Bhd (First Defendant) Wang YaZhou (Second Plaintiff) Titian Sama Sdn Bhd (Developer) Parcel No. 26-09, Parc 3 RM1,000,130.00 [11] The Plaintiffs paid a sum of RM6,459,975.20 to D1 and/or Ambang Wawasan. Through a letter of acknowledgement and rebate letter, the Defendants have agreed that the amount of RM6,459,975.20 is sufficient to pay for all the four properties. [12] In 2023, the 1st Plaintiff came to Malaysia, and was informed that D1 and/or Ambang Wawasan had not made full payment of the purchase price to Desaria Property Sdn. Bhd. and Titian Sama Sdn. Bhd. (Developers). [13] D2 and D3 have not make the full payment of the purchase price to the Developers, despite several efforts made by the 1st Plaintiff for them to do so. Instead, they acknowledged that they do not have sufficient money to pay the Developers. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [14] On 3 November 2023, the Plaintiffs’ solicitors conducted a CCM search over the names of D1 and Ambang Wawasan and issued a letter of demand to D1 requesting for full payments to be paid to the Developers. [15] Subsequently, the Plaintiffs found out that-

Ambang Wawasan had been dissolved;

D1’s registered address had been closed; and

D1’s business address is a residential address. [16] The 1st Plaintiff then lodged a police report for potential misuse of funds and/or involvement in criminal breach of trust and/or fraud by the Defendants. The Defendants’ Version [17] D1 is in the business of marketing and sales of properties undertaken by Malaysian developers to foreigners, in particular buyers from China. D1 was incorporated in July 2019, succeeded from the business operations of Ambang Wawasan Properties Development Sdn Bhd which was incorporated in March 2013. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [18] D2 is the director of D1. D3 is a Chinese national who is a visa holder for ‘Malaysia My Second Home programme’ and is residing in Malaysia. [19] D1 promotes Malaysian properties in China through its network of contacts. Once there is a confirmed China national buyer for a particular property, D1 will arrange to execute the sale and purchase agreement directly with the developer concerned. [20] The 1st Plaintiff signed the sale and purchase agreements for the two (2) Units in the development known as “The Manor” directly with the developer, Desaria Property Sdn Bhd. [21] Desaria has expressly authorised D1 to sell and collect the purchase price on their behalf which, Desaria will pay D1 a commission. D1 alleged that Desaria currently owes D1 an accumulated commission exceeding RM1.8 Million. [22] Meanwhile, if the sale price for the Unit is below the minimum threshold of RM1million and there is an interested Purchaser, D1 will first S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA sign the sale and purchase agreement for the Unit with the developer. Then he will sign a back-to-back sale and purchase agreement with the Purchaser to sell the Unit with add-ons, on a fully furnished basis, to the Purchaser at a price above RM1million. [23] Hence, D1 entered into the sale and purchase agreements for the two (2) units in the development known as “Residensi Parc 3” with the developer, Titian Sama Sdn Bhd (Titian Sama). Then, signed back-to-back sale and purchase agreements for the two (2) Units with add-ons, on a fully furnished basis, with the Plaintiffs. [24] Due to the China monetary control policy where it is difficult for individuals to remit monies of out China, the Purchasers would pay and deposit the purchase price for their respective units into Ren YuLing, D3 and/or Ouyang Ping’s bank accounts in China. Ren YuLing and Ouyang Ping are both China nationals and D2’s and D3’s wives respectively. After the money been deposited to them, D3 will arrange through an intermediary to remit the purchase price received to D1’s account in Malaysia, to be paid to the respective Developers as and when the progress payments for the units are due. Receipts are issued by D1 to the Purchasers. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [25] D1 contended that it has fulfilled its obligations to the 1st Plaintiff as follows-

The full purchase price for unit D-23-2 has been paid to Desaria by D1. The 1st Plaintiff has in fact taken vacant possession of the same and together with the Plaintiffs’ children who are residing there; and

65% of the purchase price for unit F-26-2 has been paid to Desaria by the 1st Defendant. Desaria is authorised to deduct from the commission owing to the 1st Defendant to off-set and account for the balance 35% of the purchase price. Hence, the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to take vacant possession of unit F-26-2 from Desaria. [26] China’s financial regulatory authority discovered the large sums of monies deposited into Ren YuLing, D3’s and/or Ouyang Ping’s accounts and proceeded to freeze these accounts. [27] D1 has paid about 70% of the purchase prices for the 2 Units to Titian Sama. This is despite a substantial part of the Plaintiffs’ payments S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA for the two (2) units in “Residensi Parc 3” were caught and frozen in China. As a result, D1 was unable to pay the balance progress payments for the 2 units, and consequently, Titian Sama has forfeited the same. [28] Due to the unforeseen circumstances, the 1st Plaintiff had agreed to give D1, one (1) year to make the refund. Plaintiffs’ Contention (Enclosure 43) [29] The Plaintiffs raised an objection that Enclosure 43 was filed over three (3) months after decision was made for Enclosure 21. The Plaintiffs reliance was based on Order 42 Rule 13 of the ROC 2012 which provides that a party intending to set aside an order or judgment, “shall make an application to the Court and serve it on the party who has obtained the order or judgment within thirty days after the receipt of the order or judgment by him.”. [30] As for the Recusal Application, the Plaintiffs contended that this request is baseless and unfounded. The Plaintiffs contended that I have reviewed all the relevant cause papers and fully capable of rendering a S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA fair and impartial decision without oral submissions, a right reserved within judicial discretion. [31] The Plaintiffs further contended that, in any event, the Defendants face no prejudice, as they retain their right to continue their defence in Court during full trial. Plaintiffs’ Contention (Enclosure 46) [32] The Plaintiffs alleged that D2 and D3 have not make full payment of the purchase price to the Developers. In fact, the Defendants acknowledged that they do not have sufficient money to pay the Developers as pleaded in the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs and the Defence of the Defendant. The admission of facts are in the Defendants’ Defence and their Affidavit in Enclosure 11. Defendants’ Contention (Enclosure 43) [33] D2 and D3 contended that they have not been given the chance to be heard before the disposal of Enclosure 21 and as such there was an S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA alleged real danger of bias, that Enclosure 21 was dismissed without considering its merits. [34] Among the reasons for the recusal is the contention of the Defendants that despite a Certificate of Urgency been filed in support of an interim prayer for stay, it was only fixed for Hearing more than a month later. The Defendant then submitted that in the ordinary course of events, the Court would fix a short date, for the disposal of the interim prayer for stay whereupon the typical directions for the exchange of affidavits and written submissions and a hearing date for the stay proper would be fixed. [35] The Defendant contended that this would protect the Defendants’ interest pending its appeal to the Court of Appeal. There would be no prejudice to the Defendants in the event its appeal is ultimately successful. In the words of the Defendants that “the Defendants were left at the mercy of the Plaintiffs especially given the rather oppressive orders made against the Defendants.” (referring to the Injunction Order, which stay has been granted, pending appeal). [36] The Defendants further contended that this Court appears to have prejudged the issues for determination at trial in favour of the Plaintiffs. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA Defendants’ Contention (Enclosure 46) [37] The Defendants contended that the admissions were made by D1 and that the receipts and letters were not issued by D2 and D3. Furthermore, the 1st Plaintiff had agreed to give D1, one (1) year to make the refund. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS [38] Before arriving at the decision on Enclosure 21 for the striking out application, this Court has perused all the necessary documents including the pleadings and found that there are issues to be tried that does not warrant the striking out of the Plaintiffs’ claim. This is not a plain and obvious case for striking out the Plaintiffs’ claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action (see Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 1 MLRA 611; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 2 AMR 1969). Recusal Application S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [39] In regards to the Defendants’ certificate of urgency, it was filed to stay the injunction order against them, pending appeal. Based on this Court’s discretion, this Court finds that there was no urgency to immediately hear the matter. Nevertheless, the stay application was heard and allowed on 30th April 2024. [40] In Dato' Tan Heng Chew V. Tan Kim Hor & Another Appeal, [2006] 1 MLRA 89, the Federal Court held that the test to be adopted in recusal application is the 'real danger of bias' test. [41] The recusal application came after this Court had considered the Defendants earlier application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim which this Court had dismissed. [42] This Court is of the view that the decision to dismiss the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff's case, did not finally determine the issues to be tried, raised in the pleadings. These issues remain open for assessment and determination, which will undertake at full trial. Thus, the Defendants’ contention that I had pre-determined their case, is without merit. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [43] Reference is also made to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Berhad v. Yong Liuk Thin & Ors [1995] 1 MLRA 311; [1995] 2 MLJ 213; [1995] 2 CLJ 900 that the law does not assume bias so as to mandate the recusal of a judge unless the judge has an interest in the subject matter of the proceedings which is pecuniary or proprietary in nature. [44] I must state that I do not have any direct pecuniary nor proprietary interest in this subject matter of a proceeding. [45] The Defendants contended in their submissions that ‘the serious and heavy-handed prayers that the Plaintiffs are seeking against the Defendants; inter alia, to restrain the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from leaving the country, to direct the police to call and investigate the Defendants pursuant to Sections 408 and 415 of the Penal Code and for the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of almost RM6.5 million in damages’, would adversely affect and cause grave prejudice to the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants (in their words) contended that justice would be served by setting aside the Decision of this Court on the Injunction and that this Suit to be heard and determined before another Judge or Judicial Commissioner. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [46] This Court finds that this contention by the Defendants is out of context. If ever the Defendants felt that the decision of this Court is in error, the proper method is for the Defendants to appeal and not by making this recusal application. Judgment on Admission of Facts [47] Order 27 Rule 3 of the ROC 2012, provides- “Judgment on admission of facts (O. 27, R 3).

Where admissions of fact are made by a party to a cause or matter either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the court may give such judgment, or make such order, on the application as it thinks just.

An application for a judgment or order under this rule shall be made by a notice of application.”. [48] In the case of Wong Kian Wah v. Ng Kien Boon, [2018] MLRAU 250, the Court of Appeal held- [6] On the face of admitted facts, it was plainly wrong for the learned Judge to conclude that the plaintiff had not proved the case. Admission can come before the writ is filed, or during the case management, or even during the trial. The pleading rules play little significance when parties to an action actually admit the sum claim and such admission may even be contrary to S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA the pleaded case. This is set out in O 27 r 3 of RC 2012, which reads as follows:

"Judgment on admission of facts (O 27, r 3)

Where admissions of fact are made by a party to a cause or matter, either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the Court may give such judgment, or make such order, on the application as it thinks just.

An application for a judgment or order under this rule shall be made by a notice of application." [7] A notice of application is not necessary if an order has to be made at the trial. In the instant case, the sum admitted during the trial was not in issue, and in consequence, s 17 of EA 1950 will entitle a judgment in favour of the appellant as opposed to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim in totality. [8] For reasons stated above the appeal is allowed with judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of RM2.7 million, with interests, as prayed in the statement of claim, with no order as to costs. Deposit was to be refunded. [49] The Court of Appeal’s decision in Wong Kian Wah (supra) clearly held that admissions can come at any time, even before the writ is filed and that “The pleading rules play little significance when parties to an action actually admit the sum claim”. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [50] Additionally. the Plaintiffs have relied on the case of Lee Ho Ang v Golden Base Construction Sdn Bhd [2019] CLJU 2098, that held- [7] I am of the following view regarding O 27 r 3(1) RC:

a plaintiff may apply to court to enter a judgment or order under O 27 r 3(1) RC against a defendant when there is a clear "admission of fact by the defendant (Factual Admission) - please see the judgment of Mohamed Dzaiddin J (as he then was) in the High Court in Ong Gim Huat v. Toh Suan Lin Amy [1992] 4 MLRH 285; [1992] 2 MLJ 610, at 614;

a Factual Admission may be made by a party as follows-

a Factual Admission may be made in a-

Defence; or

(ii) defence to a counterclaim [Defence (CC)];

when a party fails to "traverse" an allegation of fact as follows-

the Defence fails to traverse a factual averment pleaded in

(ii) the Defence (CC) has not traversed a factual allegation pleaded in a counterclaim. [51] Further, in Yam Kong Seng & Anor v Yee Weng Kai [2014] 6 CLJ 285, the Federal Court held- [15] To enable us to ascertain whether there was a judicial admission we need to refer to para 8 of the defence. It reads as follows: S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA "8 ... Further defendants 1 & 2 aver that the defendants were ready and willing at all material time to settle the said amount within six months but as there was no mutual agreement as to a fixed rate of interest or whether there was any interest at all, the date of breach was not fixed, and lack of a unequivocal written demand all of which put the whole outstanding sum for repayment in dispute ..." [16] The above averment was in response to para 12 of the statement of claim wherein the appellants averred that the company and the respondent had confirmed in writing of the amount owing and payable to them. It is trite law that a judicial admission made in a pleading stands on a higher footing than evidentiary admission (Sarkar's Law of Evidence) with the respondent's admission therein be made the foundation of the rights of the parties (Satish Mohan Bilal v. State of UP [1986] AIR All 126). Any failure on the part of the respondent to rebut the admission to avoid the legal consequences of his admission would entitle the appellants to enter judgment against him. [17] Having perused the defence in particular para 8, we find that there is clear judicial admission of the debt owed. The question that must follow would be whether the respondent was avoiding responsibility to pay up. In Jacob and Goldrein's Pleadings: Principles and Practice [1990] pp 133-134 in dealing with confession and avoidance, the following is stated: Confession and Avoidance Meaning The term 'confession and avoidance' is the description of a plea in the defence which, while expressly or impliedly admitting or confessing or assuming the truth of the material facts alleged in the statement of claim, seeks at the same time to avoid or destroy the legal consequences of those facts. The plea is invoked by alleging fresh or additional facts to establish some legal justification or excuse, or some other ground for avoiding or escaping legal liability.The defendant, as it were, confesses the truth of what is alleged against him but proceed immediately to 'avoid' the effect of such allegations. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [18] Having scrutinised the defence we find that the respondent has failed to avoid legal liability. With there being judicial admission by the respondent sufficient to hold him liable to the amount claimed the answer to the first question of law in this appeal must be answered in the positive. [52] Therefore, based on the above cited cases, to invoke Order 27 Rule 3 of the ROC 2012, there must be either an admission of fact made by the Defendants in their Defence or a failure on the part of the Defendants to rebut the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and the admission can also come before the filing of the Writ. [53] Consequently, this Court, upon considering all the relevant facts and submissions, allows Enclosure 46 on the basis of the Defendants’ admissions in their Defence and the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply that stated-

The Defence (Enclosure 10)-

Defendan-Defendan memplidkan bahawa disebabkan penularan wabak Covid-19 dan kawalan pergerakan ketat yang dikenakan oleh kebanyakan negara, khususnya China, pergerakan peribadi dan kewangan keluar dari China telah disekat dengan teruk.

Memburukkan lagi masalah ini, pihak berkuasa kawal selia kewangan China menemui sejumlah besar wang yang S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA didepositkan ke dalam akaun bank Ren YuLing, Defendan Ketiga dan/atau Ouyang Ping oleh Pembeli, dan terus membekukan akaun-akaun ini bersama-sama dengan banyak akaun lain pembekal-pembekal Defendan Pertama di China. Jumlah amaun yang dibekukan melebihi RMB7 juta.

Sebahagian besar daripada pembayaran Plaintif untuk 2 unit dalam "Residensi Parc 3" telah diterperangkap dan dibekukan di China. Oleh itu, Defendan Pertama tidak dapat membayar baki bayaran kemajuan yang perlu dibayar untuk 2 unit tersebut, dan akibatnya Tititan Sama telah melucuthakkan wang yang sama. Plaintif juga dimaklumkan mengenai perkara yang sama.

Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 11)

Saya mengakui bahawa resit-resit dan surat-surat di Ekshibit "PW-1" dan "PW-2" dikeluarkan oleh Ambang Wawasan Properties Development Sdn Bhd atau Defendan Pertama. [54] Clearly, from the facts of the case, moneys have been transferred to D3 by the Plaintiffs, expecting that D3 would utilize the money to pay for the purchase price of the properties in Malaysia and that D1 and Ambang Wawasan would issue the official receipts to the Plaintiffs and all these official receipts to be signed by D2. S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA [55] However, full payments of the purchase price to the Developers were not made. In fact, the Defendants acknowledged that they do not have sufficient money to pay the Developers. [56] Therefore, this Court is of the view that, in both the Defence and Affidavit, the Defendants have explicitly admitted and acknowledged that payments have been received from the Plaintiffs. [57] Furthermore, the Defendants have claimed that they are unable to settle the outstanding payments to the Developers due to the stringent monetary movement controls imposed by China and that their accounts have been frozen by the Chinese government. CONCLUSION [58] After a thorough and careful evaluation of all the evidence presented, including the written and oral submissions by the learned Counsels, hence, only prayer (a) of Enclosure 43 is allowed. [59] Accordingly, Enclosure 46 is allowed with cost. Hence, this Court finds that there is no necessity to hear Enclosure 21 (to strike out the S/N Srz1eyiARkOJiDiOnzzrkA Plaintiffs’ claim) and Enclosure 74 (Defendants’ stay application pending appeal). -SGD- (DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT NCVC 1 Kuala Lumpur Court. Dated: 9 April 2025 COUNSELS For the Plaintiffs TETUAN KASSIM TADIN, WAI & CO Unit No. 8-3A, 3rd Mile Square No. 151, Jalan Klang Lama Batu 3 ½, 58000, Kuala Lumpur. For the Defendants TETUAN S B CHEAH & ASSOCIATES Unit 8-16-2, Menara Mutiara Bangsar Jalan Liku, Off Jalan Riong Bangsar, 59100 Kuala Lumpur.