Plaintif gagal memberi notis perubahan mengenai penglibatan Defendan Ketiga; dan tidak wajar diterima oleh mahkamah disebabkan pembuat (maker) kepada dokumen ini tidak hadir memberi keterangan di mahkamah. Sama ada Plaintif mesti hadir semasa perbicaraan untuk memberi keterangan bagi pihaknya [15] Dalam hujahnya, Defendan-defendan menegaskan bahawa HMS terkhilaf dalam membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif disebabkan Plaintif sendiri gagal hadir memberi keterangan di mahkamah. [16] Isu mengenai keperluan Plaintif sendiri memberi keterangan, adalah menjadi undang-undang bahawa tiada undang-undang yang mewajibkan Plaintif hadir memberi keterangan di mahkamah serta menentukan siapa dan berapa saksi yang perlu dipanggilnya bagi membuktikan kausa tindakan serta tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-defendan. Dalam kes Ranbaxy (M) Sdn Bhd v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours & Co [2011] CLJU 16; [2012] 4 MLJ 34, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan melalui Ramly Ali HMR (pada masa itu) menyatakan – [71] There is no law to say that a party to a civil proceeding must personally attend court and give evidence to support its claim or counterclaim. The respondent may, at its own discretion call any number of witnesses whose evidence are relevant to prove its defence and counter claim…..”. [17] Berdasarkan kepada Nota Keterangan, saya mendapati Plaintif telah memanggil pengurus Plaintif iaitu Lee Kee Sheng, William (SP1) untuk memberi keterangan di mahkamah di mana SP1 mengakui telah mendapat surat kebenaran untuk hadir mewakili Plaintif serta beliau sendiri mempunyai pengetahuan peribadi serta pengetahuan langsung mengenai pertikaian antara Plaintif dan Defendan-defendan. SP1 juga mengakui bahawa beliau sendiri bagi pihak Plaintif telah memberikan perkhidmatan rundingan kepada Defendan Ketiga sehingga tahun 2020. [18] Pada masa yang sama, saya mendapati Defendan Kedua (SD1) mengakui Defendan Ketiga membayar invois bulanan yang dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif mengikut garis masa yang sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Perjanjian 1.5.2018 bagi perkhidmatan rundingan yang diberikan oleh Plaintif mulai 2018 hingga 2020. Ringkasnya, Defendan Ketiga membayar RM36,036.75 iaitu 0.5% daripada pendapatan jualan tahunannya bagi tahun 2018. [19] Melihat kepada fakta di atas, saya berpandangan Plaintif telah membuktikan bahawa, tanpa beliau sendiri memberi keterangan di mahkamah, Plaintif telah memberikan perkhidmatan rundingan kepada Defendan Ketiga dan bayaran yuran rundingan tahunan bagi tahun 2018 yang dibuat oleh Defendan Ketiga membuktikan bahawa perkhidmatan rundingan telah diberikan oleh Plaintif. Tiada sebab untuk Defendan Ketiga membuat bayaran sekiranya perkhidmatan rundingan tidak diberikan oleh Plaintif. [20] Oleh itu, alasan ketidakhadiran Plaintif, pada pandangan saya tidak menjejaskan tuntutan beliau terhadap Defendan-defendan. Sama ada kegagalan Plaintif memberi notis perubahan mengenai penglibatan Defendan Ketiga menjejaskan tuntutan [21] Defendan-defendan menyatakan bahawa klausa 13.1 Perjanjian 1.5.2018 mensyaratkan bahawa sebarang perubahan kepada Perjanjian tersebut hendaklah dimaklumkan kepada pihak yang satu lagi secara bertulis. Disebabkan kegagalan Plaintif memberi notis mengenai penglibatan Defendan Ketiga sebagai ganti kepada Defendan Keempat dalam pemberikan perkhidmatan rundingan, Defendan-defendan mendakwa ini menjejaskan tuntutan Plaintif. [22] Dalam hal ini, saya bersetuju dengan peguamcara Plaintif bahawa isu mengenai kegagalan Plaintif memberikan notis perubahan ini tidak pernah diplidkan oleh Defendan-defendan. Sebaliknya, ia hanya dibangkitkan buat kali pertama dalam rayuan ini. [23] Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa pihak-pihak tidak boleh membangkitkan isu yang tidak dipildkan. Dalam kes Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan Sdn Bhd v. Kim Seng Enterprise (Kedah) Sdn Bhd [2013] 6 CLJ 958; [2013] 5 MLJ 360, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan: [18] What this amounts to is this. That the court is not entitled and should not decide a suit on an issue which is not pleaded. In short, the trial of the suit must be confined to the pleadings (Yew Wan Leong v. Lai Kok Chye [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 330; [1990] 2 MLJ 152 (SC), at p 154) and the pleadings operate to effectively define and delimit with absolute clarity and precision the real matters in controversy between the parties. In this way, the parties could prepare their respective cases and the court too will adjudicate on those issues and no more... [24] Begitu juga dalam kes Joseph Paulus Lantip v. Tnio Chee Chang [2020] 4 CLJ 79 di mana Mary Lim HMR (pada masa itu) ketika menyampaikan penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan – "[28] The role played by pleadings cannot be overstated. It is a fundamental principle of fair play which extends to the Court, that all parties are bound by their pleadings. It would be most damaging to our administration and system of justice if parties are allowed to plead a certain complaint, lead evidence on another and the Court, decides on something entirely different. The Federal Court recently reminded and expressed the following view on the importance of proper pleadings in Iftikar Ahmed Khan v. Perwira Affin Bank Bhd [2018] 1 CLJ 415: [29] It is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded: Samuel Naik Siang Ting v. Public Bank Bhd...In Lee Ah Chor v. Southern Bank Bhd [1991] 1 CLJ 667; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 239 it was held that where a vital issue was not raised in the pleadings, it could not be allowed to be granted and to succeed on appeal. A decision based on an issue which was not raised by the parties in their pleadings is liable to be set aside:... In The Chartered 13 Bank v. Yong Chan [1990] 1 CLJ 1113; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 330; [1990] 1 MLJ 157, the Federal Court set aside the judgment of the trial judge as it was decided on an issue not raised on the pleadings. In that case, the trial judge erred in concluding that the pleadings included a claim for breach of contract as well as a claim for libel." [25] Selain itu, walaupun tanpa pemberitahuan mengenai perubahan perjanjian saya mendapati perubahan ini diketahui oleh Defendan Ketiga dan Keempat. Saya mendapati semasa disoal balas oleh peguam Plaintif, SD1 mengakui perkara yang berikut: Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Keempat (lihat m/s 162 & 163 Nota Keterangan); dan Keterangan); [26] Melihat kepada keterangan Defendan Kedua di atas, timbul persoalan iaitu sekiranya tiada perjanjian antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Ketiga, mengapa Plaintif memberikan perkhidmatan rundingan kepada Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Ketiga membayar yuran rundingan tahunan berkenaan? Oleh itu saya bersetuju dengan dapatan HMS bahawa Perjanjian 1.5.2018 telah diubah secara tersirat berdasarkan kepada tindakan pihak-pihak. [27] Dalam kes Paul Murugesu s/o Ponnusamy (as representative of Nalamah d/o Sangapillay (deceased)) v. Cheok Toh Gong & Ors [1996] 2 CLJ 397; [1996] 1 MLJ 843, Mahkamah Agung memutuskan: "In the first place, both parties to an agreement are entitled to vary any term of the agreement, in writing, or orally, where oral evidence of such variation can of course be given, to quote s. 92(d) of the Evidence Act 1950, "save in cases in which the contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to registration of documents". The above agreement is not of those excepted cases. It is important to remember that when it is sought to prove a variation, not by an express agreement, by a course of conduct, that both parties have understood the variation and intended to be bound by it. In the instant case, the variation in question was sought to be proved by a course of conduct, vide the evidence set out earlier, and the Court would have to be satisfied that the variation to clause 3 in question was both understood by the purchaser and the vendors, and that they all intended to be bound by it. What the Court would have to be so satisfied would depend on the surrounding circumstances." [28] Begitu juga dalam kes Genneva Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. Tio Jit Hong & Ors [2020] 4 CLJ 449; [2020] 6 MLJ 703 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan melalui Kamaludin Md Said HMR menyatakan – [54] In our view, the fact that the defendant having accepted the offers which followed by payments into the defendant's bank account and some by partly giving gold at an agreed value and used them for defendant's benefit, the defendant's conduct is consistent with having accepted the offers made by the plaintiffs. By the defendant's own conduct, the defendant is therefore estopped from denying that there is a valid and binding contract between defendant and the plaintiffs. [29] Walau apapun isu dibangkitkan mengenai ketiadaan notis perubahan yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-defendan, saya mendapati ia tidak menjejaskan tuntutan Plaintif disebabkan Perjanjian 1.5.2018 sendiri mengiktiraf bahawa Plaintif sememangnya memberi perkhidmatan rundingan kepada Defendan Keempat serta syarikat berkaitan dengannya iaitu termasuklah Defendan Ketiga. Klausa mukadimah Perjanjian 1.5.2018 menyatakan – “(A) The Client is desirous of appointing the Consultant to provide Business Consulting and Operation Consulting services to the Client and to the Client’s Related Companies.”. Manakala dalam klausa 1 Perjanjian 1.5.2018 pula, syarikat-syarikat yang berkaitan dengan Defendan Keempat ditakrifkan sebagaimana berikut: “Client’s Related Companies Means collectively the following businesses and/ or companies: -