(c) whether there are merits in the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 67 in enforcing the Judgment. 10 ANALYSIS, FINDING AND DECISION OF THE COURT First Issue and Second Issue [15] In this case, the Defendant had filed Enclosure 82 to challenge the validity of the Judgment of the Alor Setar High Court dated 29/10/2019 in regard to the Plaintiff’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of ROC 2012 (Enclosure 52). The Defendant averred that the Judgment was null and void because it was decided without the merits of the Defence being heard. Therefore, it ought to be set aside pursuant to Order 42 rule 13 read together with Order 13 rule 8 of ROC 2012. [16] The Plaintiff on the other hand contended that the Judgment is regular and valid as the merits of the Plaintiff’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of ROC 2012 had been heard and decided inter partes by the Alor Setar High Court. Thus, if the Defendant was aggrieved by the Judgment, the Defendant should appeal against the decision and not to set aside the said decision as in Enclosure 52. [17] Having examined and considered Enclosure 82 and all the cause papers, it is the finding of this Court that the Judgment dated 29/10/2019 is a regular and valid judgment. The reasons are as follows. 11 [18] Firstly, based on the records of the proceedings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were represented by their counsels throughout the proceedings before the learned High Court Judge of Alor Setar, including the inter partes hearing of the Plaintiff’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of ROC 2012 (Enclosure 52) which was decided on 29/10/2019. From the record, the Plaintiff was represented by Marleyana binti Yahya from Messrs. Jin-Nge & Co., whilst the Defendant was represented by Sukhdave Singh a/l Mohan Singh from Messrs. Andrew Paul & Associates. [19] Since Enclosure 52 had been fully heard inter partes on its merits by the learned High Court Judge of Alor Setar, the Defendant’s ground of application in Enclosure 82 that he had been denied the opportunity to be heard which tantamount to a breach of natural justice is totally baseless and without any merit. [20] Secondly, the law is trite that Order 42 rule 13 of ROC 2012 does not apply to an inter partes order or judgment which is made pursuant to an application which had been heard on merits. As Enclosure 82 is an application under Order 42 rule 13 of ROC 2012 and was fully heard on its merits inter partes by the learned High Court Judge of Alor Setar, this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of the High Court Judge which was made on 29/10/2019. 12 [21] On this point, the Court of Appeal through the speaking judgment of S Nantha Balan JCA in Halim Saad v. Chan Yok Peng (supra) has decided as the followings: “(1) Order 42 r. 13 of the ROC is only applicable in respect to the provisions under the ROC which specifically provides for a setting aside or varying any order or judgment in a situation provided under O. 13 r. 8 of the ROC (setting aside judgment in default of appearance to a writ). The judgment/order dated 12 July 2019 was not a default or a consent judgment but rather it was an order/judgment that was obtained on merits after the court had considered all the cause papers. Thus, the defendant’s application to set aside the judgment/order dated 12 July 2019 pursuant to O. 42 r. 13 of the ROC was fundamentally flawed. Order 42 r. 13 does not apply to an inter partes order which is made pursuant to an application which had been heard on merits. Order 42 r. 13 is not an avenue for an unsuccessful party to seek a ‘review’ of the adverse decision. Having made the judgment/order on 12 July 2019, the High Court was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to consider encl. 40. The matter was, in fact, barred by res judicata. (paras 29, 32, 36 & 50).”. [22] Thirdly, the reasons given by the Defendant that he was not aware about the Judgment dated 29/10/2019, and only came to know about it around one year and six months later, as he was immobilized by a stroke during the year 2018 until 2019 and had to undergo treatment and only been informed about the Judgment by his Former Solicitors near the end of 2020, were not supported by any evidence. No medical record and affidavit by the 13 Defendant’s Former Solicitors were filed by the Defendant to prove the same. None at all. [23] As there is no evidence to prove the Defendant’s ill health and immobilization and no evidence to show that the Defendant could not be reached and/or contacted by his Former Solicitors within the period from 29/10/2019 to the end of 2020 to be informed and conveyed about the Judgment, this Court is of the view that the reasons given by the Defendant were just a lame excuse and an afterthought without any substantiating evidence, proof and justification. What’s more, with the advanced modern technologies and devices in communication, like cell phone, e-mail, SMS/text messaging and remote communication. [24] Fourthly, the law is trite that any decision regularly made under the application of Order 18 rule 19(1) of ROC 2012 is a final judgment, unless it can be proved that the judgment is null and void on the ground of illegality or lack of jurisdiction, and as the judgment is final, the Court is functus officio and consequently, the matter becomes res judicata and could not be re-litigated in the same court or in a different court. Therefore, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to appeal against the decision. 14 [25] In this respect, the Federal Court in Badiaddin Bin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd (supra) through the Judgment delivered by Mohd Azmi FCJ and Peh Swee Chin FCJ has held as follows: “Per Mohd Azmi FCJ – [1] It is settled law that one High Court cannot set aside a final order regularly obtained from another High Court of concurrent jurisdiction. The one special exception to this rule is where the final judgment of the High Court can be proved to be null and void on the ground of illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Per Peh Swee Chin FCJ – [2] When a judgment in the High court has been perfected, a party to the judgment generally, and subject to the same passage or any written law, and apart from any appeal, cannot re-open the matter finalised in the judgment by seeking to alter it or amend it for the court would be functus officio, by virtue of the ratio of Hock Hua Bank v. Sahari Murid. … [4a] The second order should not be re-opened and heard again after it was perfected and also on the ground of res judicata, but it should not be set aside as the clear ratio in Hock Hua Bank would be departed from, even though it would be done on grounds of illegality on the argument based on the Enactment. However the second order could be stayed permanently. The second order was an order of execution but stated in the form of and as part of a court’s order. The court which makes an order since perfected is functus officio about re-opening the matter and rehearing the parties on merits about the order, but it is not functus officio to hear a subsequent application to set aside an order of execution or order of seizure and sale.”. 15 [26] Similarly, in the case of Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v. Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd (supra), Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ in delivering the judgment of the Federal Court has stated that – “(3) Once a regularly obtained order or judgment had been perfected, the court was functus officio. The matter, as decided vide encl 6, was thus res judicata and could not be re-litigated. The order made under encl 6 was appealed and affirmed right up to the Federal Court. It could not now be revisited or re-asserted under any guise in a subsequent proceeding. The issues raised by the respondent in encl 29 could have been brought up during the appeal process. The law does not allow the respondent to have a second bite of the cherry and in the manner as it did (see para 44).