Abu Hanzalah Bin Abu Bakar v Na Bon Tiam (BA-22NCvC-582-12/2025)

An ex parte injunction to restrain the Defendant and/or his agents and/or workers and/or employees and/or third parties from enforcing an eviction order (“the Eviction Order”) pursuant to a writ of possession taken in respect of the property bearing title particulars GRN 26109, Lot 26/01/2026 08:18:30 BA-22NCvC-582-12/2025 Kand. 18 S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw 308 Seksyen 38, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor and bearing address of No 574, Jalan 17/15, 46400, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“the Property”), which will be executed on 19.12.2025;

An ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendant and/or his agents and/or workers and/or employees and/or third parties from enforcing the Eviction Order on the Property pending hearing of the inter partes injunction;

An interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant and/or his agents and/or workers and/or employees and/or third parties from enforcing the Eviction Order on the Property pending disposal of this suit. [2] However, I have decided to dismiss Enclosure 4 based on the reasonings which I shall explain hereafter. Background Facts [3] The Plaintiff was the previous owner of the Property. [4] On 15.12.2025, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from his son to quickly return home. [5] Upon returning home, the Plaintiff found the presence of the Court’s bailiff (“the Bailiff”) and the Defendant’s representatives to enforce the Eviction Order. S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw [6] The Plaintiff was very surprised and subsequently discovered that the Property has already been transferred to the Defendant on 14.7.2022. The Plaintiff attributes this solely on a loan (“the Loan”) taken by his wife, Zarida binti Talib (NRIC No 680515- 07-5514) (“Zarida”) from the Defendant. [7] The Plaintiff also discovered that he had entered in a sale and purchase agreement (“the Sale & Purchase Agreement”) to sell the Property to the Defendant for the purchase price of Ringgit Malaysia One Million Five Hundred Thousand (RM 1,500,000.00) only (“the Purchase Price”). [8] The Plaintiff claims that his signature in the Sale & Purchase Agreement has been forged. [9] The Plaintiff also found out that the Property has already been transferred to the Defendant on 14.7.2022 via presentation no 0015C 72570/2022. [10] In addition, the Plaintiff also found out that his wife, Zarida had entered into a tenancy agreement dated 4.6.2022 (“the Tenancy Agreement”) with the Defendant, whereby the Defendant is now renting the Property to Zarida at the monthly rental of RM 30,000.00 (“the Monthly Rental”). [11] The writ of possession dated 19.9.2025 (“the Writ of Possession’) issued by the Defendant against Zarida was taken in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court Suit No BB-B54-6- S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw 07/2024 (“Suit 07”), which orders for the Property to be surrendered by Zarida to the Defendant and for the payment of the sum of RM 711,200.00 being the outstanding of the Monthly Rental. [12] The Plaintiff had also made a police report on 16.12.2025 (“the Police Report”), claiming that: -

the Plaintiff did not sign the Sale & Purchase Agreement or any transfer relating to the Property;

the Plaintiff’s signature has been forged;

the Plaintiff did not know that his wife had borrowed money from an unlicensed money lender and the Property was used as security;

the Plaintiff was not aware that the ownership of the Property has been transferred;

the Plaintiff only knew about all these matters in 15.12.2025, which is the day before the Police Report was made. Findings by the Court [13] On the onset, I have found the version of events put forth by the Plaintiff as severely sketchy and wanting. Basically, the Plaintiff S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw had denied all knowledge of the Sale & Purchase Agreement, the Loan, the Tenancy Agreement, the Monthly Rental and the Writ of Possession. [14] In paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Police Report, the Plaintiff explains: - “Saya langsung tidak mengetahui bahawa isteri saya telah membuat perjanjian pinjaman dengan pemiutang wang tidak berlesen, yang kononnya melibatkan rumah saya sebagai cagaran. Saya juga tidak mengetahui bahawa nama pemilik rumah telah ditukar daripada nama saya kepada nama pemberi pinjaman tersebut. Saya hanya mengetahui perkara ini pada semalam.” [15] In paragraphs (10), (14)(q) and (15)(iii) of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff again states: - “(10) Tanpa pengetahuan plaintif, isteri plaintif telah memasuki suatu perjanjian jual beli (“perjanjian S&P”) dengan defendan dengan cara meniru tandatangan plaintif kepada perjanjian S&P tersebut termasuk Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara sambil disaksikan oleh peguamcara yang mewakilinya bagi transaksi jumlah pinjaman seperti dipohon.

(14)(q) Berdasarkan hal-ehwal itu mustahil plaintif berpengetahuan atau memiliki sebarang bayangan pengetahuan mengenai perjanjian S&P itu termasuklah sewaan serta prosiding-prosiding tersebut. Justeru plaintif telah sengaja ditahan tentang pengetahuan mengenai perkara-perkara tersebut. Defendan dalam S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw menjalankan urusniaga jelas bersikap tidak peduli dengan cara apa hartanah itu diperolehi asalkan keuntungan terjamin di pihaknya.

(15)(iii) Defendan yang tahu plaintif dan isteri sudah menginap di hartanah tersebut melebihi tempoh 15 - 20 tahun daripada tarikh pendaftaran pindah milik 14.7.2022, sengaja menjadikan isteri plaintif sebagai pihak kepada perjanjian tenansi dengan meninggalkan plaintif. Ia jelas menunjukkan bahawa plaintif tidak tahu menahu apakah transaksi yang dibincangkan antara defendan dengan isterinya.” [16] I have made initial inquiries as to the whereabouts of the Plaintiff’s wife, Zarida, considering that the Plaintiff had alleged that it was Zarida who had forged his signature. I was then informed by the Plaintiff’s counsel that Zarida is still staying in the Property together with the Plaintiff. [17] I have found this factual disclosure unsettling. This would - on its surface - render the Plaintiff’s pleaded ignorance as feign and implausible. I find it hard to accept that all the events leading to, and surrounding the Sale & Purchase Agreement, the Loan, the Tenancy Agreement, the Monthly Rental and the Writ of Possession can mutely take place within the confines of the Plaintiff’s home for years without his knowledge or suspicion. [18] I also find it hard to accept that the Plaintiff can be blissfully unaware of the fact that his wife had obtained a sizeable loan (albeit from an unlicensed moneylender). As I have been S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw intimated earlier, both the husband and wife are living together (presumably happily) in the Property. The Plaintiff’s version of events would have been more believable had the couple been living apart. [19] A closer scrutiny on the land search report (“the Land Search Report”) would slowly unravel an alternative narrative: -

The Defendant had lodged a private caveat on the Property on 7.10.2021 via presentation no 001B 36287/2021 (“the 1st Caveat”);

Zarida had lodged a private caveat on the Property on 26.4.2022 via presentation no 001B 19420/2022 (“the 2nd

Zarida had withdrawn the 2nd Caveat on 14.7.2022 via presentation no 001B 32702/2022;

The Property was transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 14.7.2022 via presentation no 0015C 72570/2022;

The Plaintiff had lodged a private caveat on the Property on 11.10.2022 via presentation no 001B 48479/2022 (“the 3rd Caveat”); S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw

The Registrar of Titles (“the Registrar”) had on 17.1.2024, via presentation no 00B 3192/2024, made an endorsement on the Property that a notice of intended removal of the 3rd Caveat in Form 19C has been served on the Plaintiff on 7.2.2024;

The 3rd Caveat was removed on 8.4.2024 via presentation no 00B 22679/2024;

Zarida then lodged a private caveat on the Property on 8.4.2024 via presentation no 00B 22688/2024 (“the 4th Caveat”); [20] Curiously, the Land Search Report that was exhibited appears to be dated 13.6.2024. The fact that the Land Search Report shows that the Plaintiff himself has lodged the 3rd Caveat (way back on 11.10.2022) indicates that his version of events is strongly questionable. Additionally, the Plaintiff himself was issued with a notice of removal of caveat by the Registrar (way back on 7.2.2024). This surely cannot support his contention of total ignorance. [21] The Land Search Report shows that the 3rd Caveat lodged by the Plaintiff was removed on 8.4.2024 by the Registrar. And curiously and coincidentally enough, the Land Search Report also shows that Zarida had proceeded to lodge the 4th Caveat on the very same day, on 8.4.2024. This appear to suggest that both the Plaintiff and his wife are working in unison. S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw [22] The Tenancy Agreement had also indicated that the Monthly Rental of RM 30,000.00 is to be paid by Zarida to the Defendant. Again, I would say that it would be incredulous for such sizeable amount to be paid on a monthly basis without the knowledge of the Plaintiff and his family members. It is not probable for such amounts or transactions to be undertaken right under the Plaintiff’s nose without him realizing it. [23] Correspondingly, it is also hard to believe that a litigation of Suit 07 could have been conducted between the Defendant and Zarida without the Plaintiff’s knowledge. On this account, and on my further inquiry, the Plaintiff’s counsel had coyly admitted that they had acted for Zarida in the Writ of Possession, but vehemently denied ever knowing the Plaintiff prior to this current suit. [24] I am also painfully aware that the Statement of Claim appear to point to a transaction of unlicensed money lending, with issues of illegality and unenforceability. However, I am still inclined not to allow the Plaintiff’s ex-parte application. A bona fide full and frank disclosure is an absolute, non-negotiable duly imposed on any party applying for an ex-parte injunction. Because the Defendant is not present to present their side, the Court relies entirely on the Plaintiff to disclose all material facts, including those that are unfavourable to his case. As an equitable remedy the Plaintiff must approach the Court with “clean hands”, acting with honesty and candour. S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw [25] In paragraphs (26) and (29) of the Plaintiff’s affidavit in support (Enclosure 5), the Plaintiff had averred: - “(26) Saya percaya pendedahan saya di sini adalah “bona fide” dan bukannya ingin menjadikan prosiding di mahkamah yang mulia ini sebagai “platform” bagi mendapat relif agar tarikh penguatkuasaan tersebut dilewatkan atau ditangguh sebegitu sahaja.

Saya ingin menegaskan juga bahawa saya tidak meminta perintah di sini secara mala fide serta menyembunyikan fakta yang material.” [26] With respect, I am unable to agree that this ex-parte application was made on a bona-fide basis with full and frank disclosure. Conclusion [27] Accordingly, for the reasons above, Enclosure 4 is dismissed. Dated the 21st day of January 2026. (SEOW HOCK PENG) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw Counsel: For the Plaintiff : Kaharuddin Harun (Messrs Rosnida Norazian Asma & Partners) For the Defendant : Not present S/N d68vuG2PskCdROwtoJFYuw