Lampiran
Lampiran 4) daripada peguamcara Defendan iaitu:- (i) Borang Permohonan menjadi Anggota yang telah ditandatangani oleh Prakash a/l Kundandapani; (ii) Surat Tawaran Anggota Prakash a/l Kundandapani bertarikh pada 05.07.2022; (iii) Financing Application Prakash a/l Kundandapani yang disahkan pada 05.07.2022; (iv) Financing Process Sheet Prakash a/l Kundandapani bertarikh pada 30.05.2022; (v) Borang Permohonan Pembiayaan Peribadi; (vi) Sijil Bursa No: CPO05JUL22-0005035-000 bertarikh 05.07.2022; dan (vii) Cek bertarikh 05.07.2022. [9] Responden selanjutnya memplidkan bahawa pada 22.3.2024 Plaintif telah memohon daripada Peguamcara Defendan supaya mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen serta sebarang polisi insurans atau perlindungan takaful atas nama En. Prakash a/l Kandandapani (No. K/P:850723- 14-5117) yang berkaitan dengan potongan-potongan dari pembiayaan tersebut. Walaubagaimanapun, adalah merupakan kes Defendan bahawa dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon tersebut tiada di dalam milikan Defendan. D. DAPATAN DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH [10] Aturan 24 Kaedah 7A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah memperuntukkan bahawa :- (1) An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons and the person against whom the order is sought shall be made defendant to the originating summons. (2) An application after the commencement of proceedings for an order for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings shall be made by a notice of application, which shall be served on that person personally and on every party to the proceedings. (3) An originating summons under paragraph (1) or a notice of application under paragraph (2) shall be supported by an affidavit which shall— (a) in the case of an originating summons under paragraph (1), state the grounds for the application, the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings and whether the person against whom the order is sought is likely to be party to subsequent proceedings in Court; and (b) in any case, specify or describe the documents in respect of which the order is sought and show, if practicable by reference to any pleading served or intended to be served in the proceedings, that the documents are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claim made or likely to be made in the proceedings or the identity of the likely parties to the proceedings, or both, and that the person against whom the order is sought is likely to have or have had them in his possession, custody or power. (4) A copy of the supporting affidavit shall be served with the originating summons or the notice of application on every person on whom the originating summons or the notice of application is required to be served. (5) An order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings or for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings may be made by the Court for the purpose of or with a view to identifying possible parties to any proceedings in such circumstances where the Court thinks it just to make such an order, and on such terms as it thinks just. (6) An order for the discovery of documents may— (a) be made conditional on the applicant giving security for the costs of the person against whom it is made or on such other terms, if any, as the Court thinks just; and (b) require the person against whom the order is made to make an affidavit stating whether the documents specified or described in the order are, or at any time have been, in his possession, custody or power and, if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with them and what has become of them. (7) A person shall not be compelled by such an order to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce— (a) in the case of an originating summons under paragraph (1), if the subsequent proceedings had already been commenced; or (b) in the case of a notice of application under paragraph (2), if he had been served with a subpoena to produce documents at the trial. (8) For the purposes of rules 10 and 11, an application for an order under this rule shall be treated as a cause or matter between the applicant and the person against whom the order is sought. (9) Unless the Court orders otherwise, where an application is made in accordance with this rule for an order, the person against whom the order is sought shall be entitled to his costs of the application, and of complying with any order made thereon on an indemnity basis.” [11] Selanjutnya di bawah Aturan 24 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 :- “(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rules 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party. (2) (There is no paragraph (2)) (3) (There is no paragraph (3)) (4) The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under paragraph (1) are as follows: (a) the documents on which the party relies or will rely; and (b) the documents which could— (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case. [12] Di dalam kes BANDAR UTAMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR v. BANDAR UTAMA 1 JMB [2019] 10 CLJ 516 yang telah dirujuk dan diterimapakai di dalam kes ini di mana telah diputuskan bahawa :- “Jurisprudence Related To Discovery And Pre-action Discovery [10] The jurisprudence related to discovery and pre-action discovery is not one and the same even though both are placed in O. 24 of RC 2012. [11] As a general rule, discovery is related to parties to the action. Discovery under this head generally has nothing to do with cause of action but is related to relief if the applicant is the plaintiff and to deny liability or quantum if the applicant is the defendant. The threshold test to satisfy the court to obtain an order for discovery is low in contrast to pre-action discovery. The threshold test for discovery by itself is high and was explained in a number of cases. To name a few are as follows: (a) In Yekambaran Marimuthu v. Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581, the Supreme Court set out the threshold test the applicant had to satisfy to succeed in an application for discovery. The court held: (i) the essential elements for an order for discovery are threefold; namely, first there must be a "document", secondly, the document must be "relevant" and thirdly, the document must be or have been in the "possession, custody or power" of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought; (ii) the documents sought must be relevant and/or related to the factual issues in dispute; (iii) as to "relevance", our Rules of the High Court limit discovery to documents which are "relevant to" or "relate" to the factual issues in dispute; (iv) more particularly, the discovery obligation applies to documents "relating to matters in question in the action" (Rules of the High Court 1980 O. 24 r. 1(1) ] or "relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter" (O. 24 r. 3(1) ); (v) in practice, the relevance is primarily determined by reference to the pleadings but there need not be a pleading for a matter to be said to be in issue." …………………… [12] Pre-action discovery is not related to contractual parties but it is addressed to third parties who may be tortfeasors, etc or parties who are necessary for the purported plaintiff to succeed in a claim or a potential party to be the defendant. As a general rule, pre-action discovery can relate to proposed cause of action as well as relief. The threshold test to satisfy an order for pre-action discovery at common law was high in contrast to application for discovery in an action. The threshold test to satisfy an order for pre-action discovery under O. r. 7A is extremely high in contrast to common law right, as the Rules sets out specific requirements and the court must exercise its power with caution and circumspect. It is a power which must be exercised in a genuine case and not for the purpose of annoying a third party or in cases related to fishing expedition, etc.” [13] Di dalam ertikata yang lain, sebelum satu perintah untuk penzahiran boleh dibuat, elemen-elemen yang berikut perlulah dibuktikan oleh pihak yang memohon untuk dokumen-dokumen tersebut, yakni :- (i) Kewujudan dokumen tersebut (ELEMEN PERTAMA); (ii) Dokumen Hendaklah Relevan; (ELEMEN KEDUA); dan (iii) Dokumen Tersebut Dibawah Milikan / Jagaan Defendan (ELEMEN KETIGA). E. ELEMEN PERTAMA [14] Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, Pemohon memohon agar dibekalkan dengan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan potongan dari pembiayaan yang telah dinyatakan di dalam dokumen “Lembaran Proses Pembiayaan” bertarikh 30.5.2022 (eksibit “MJS-2” Lampiran 4). Namun demikian, Responden di dalam Lampiran 4 memplidkan bahawa dokumen-dokumen di bawah tidak wujud dan/atau tiada di dalam simpanan mereka di atas sebab-sebab yang berikut :- (i) Perlindungan Pin. Anggota (Livy) (0508): Tiada kelulusan langganan insurans oleh syarikat insurans; (ii) Tabung Khairat/Takaful (200006) (0509): Pernyataan ini adalah catatan berkenaan penolakan yang akan dibuat bagi pembiayaan Plaintif dan bayaran bagi tabung khairat ini telah dibuat oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif. Yang wujud adalah surat penolakan sahaja; dan (iii) Perkhidmatan Proses Pin. Anggota (0803): Pernyataan ini catatan berkenaan penolakan wajib bagi setiap pinjaman yang diberikan kelulusan sebagai tujuan proses perkhidmatan. Selain dari bukti penolakan, tiada dokumen lain yang wujud. [15] Menurut Responden lagi, permohonan untuk dokumen-dokumen tersebut seharusnya dipohon dari syarikat insurans dan bukannya dari mereka. [16] Pemohon di dalam Lampiran 1 telah memplidkan bahawa setelah dia meneliti dokumen yang telah pun dibekalkan oleh Responden sebelum ini, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti Lampiran 1 dan mendapati bahawa terdapatnya pemotongan yang dibuat dan justeru, Pemohon menganggap bahawa dokumen pemotongan tersebut wujud. Namun demikian, tiada langsung sebarang alasan yang diberikan Pemohon mempunyai anggap sedemikian. Berhadapan dengan keadaan sedemikian, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa adalah tidak wajar untuk satu perintah diberikan terhadap Responden. Ini adalah merupakan prinsip di dalam kes NGUANG CHAN AKA NGUANG CHAN LIQUOR TRADER & ORS [2009] 5 MLJ 40 yang telah dirujuk dan diterimapakai di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini di mana telah diputuskan bahawa :- “ And even in the case of a pleading or affidavit the reference to any document therein must be by way of direct allusion to a document or class of documents sought for discovery and not if the reference arises merely by inference. The court is not clothed with jurisdiction to allow discovery if the reference is merely to a transaction which on the balance of probabilities must have been affected by a document — see Slade LJ in the Dubai Bank’s case ... The exercise of the learned judge’s discretion was obviously based on the wrong premise that the appellants admitted having the said documents in their possession, custody and power. There is not a shred of evidence adduced to support that.” F. ELEMEN KEDUA [17] Berkenaan elemen ini, memandangkan tiada pembuktian untuk menunjukkan bahawa dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon oleh Pemohon tersebut wujud, maka, sudah semestinya Pemohonan gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa dokumen-dokumen tersebut adalah relevan. G. ELEMEN KETIGA [18] Sekali lagi, seperti yang telah diputuskan, tiada pembuktian yang telah diberikan oleh Pemohon untuk menunjukkan bahawa dokumen-dokumen tersebut wujud. Sehubungan dengan itu, adalah mustahil bahawa dokumen-dokumen tersebut berada di dalam milikan/kawalan dan pengetahuan Responden yang memerlukan Mahkamah ini untuk menolak permohonan Pemohon. Ini merupakan prinsip yang telah diputuskan di dalam kes MOHD MAHADI BIN ZAINUDDIN (SEBAGAI SAHANAT WAKIL/BAPA YANG SAH KEPADA SI MATI NOR QAIRA RANIA BT MOHD MAHADI) & ANOR VS DR KAMARULHAZIQ BIN BAHARUDDIN & ORS [2022] MLJU 1519 yang telah dirujuk dan diterimapakai di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini di mana telah diputuskan bahawa :- “[45] Nguang Chan’s Case is applicable to the present case as the overriding principle is in O. 24 r.13. The Court has ordered that the Defendants to produce the documents that are in their possession as stated in paragraph 2(c), 2(d) and parts of 2(e), namely the blood test results, ECG and x-ray of the deceased out of necessity for the fair disposal of the trial. Production for discovery is to be made via an official letter from the Defendants. The Court dismissed parts of the application because the “documents” do not exist and therefore not in the possession of the Defendants and hence it does not satisfy the tests in Yekambaran’s Case. This is not a case where the application is dismissed because it failed the relevancy test, but it is due to non-satisfaction of the requirements in (i) and (iii) of that case. The Court is very much interested to get to the truth of the matter, i.e. whether there is any breach of duty on the part of the Defendants. However, all parties regardless of who they are must abide by the rules. During the trial later as it progresses, should it appear that the Defendants are withholding documents in their possession that may be favourable to the Plaintiffs’ case, the Court may invoke its power under O. 24 r.12. Presently, since the Court has made its decision on this application, O. 24 r.8 is not applicable. H. KESIMPULAN [19] Memandangkan di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak wujud dan tiada di dalam milikan, kawalan dan/atau pengetahuan Responden, maka Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Responden tidak mempunyai sebarang kewajipan untuk menyerahkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut kepada Pemohon. Ini merupakan prinsip yang telah dinyatakan di dalam kes COOPERATIVE RABOBANK U.A (SINGAPORE BRANCH) VS MISC BHD & ANOR [2022] MLJU 3781 yang telah dirujuk dan diterimapakai di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini di mana telah diputuskan bahawaw :- “[29] I ordered no discovery for Category B Documents as I accept the Defendants’ contention that there is no correspondence between Aavanti and the Defendants relating to the instructions, received by the Defendants from Aavanti or given by Aavanti to deliver the Cargo to Ruchi at Kandla, India, described as Category B Documents. There is no further purpose in ordering discovery of the Category B Documents which do not exist.” [20] Dengan ini, Mahkamah ini memutuskan untuk menolak Lampiran 1 dengan kos sebanyak RM500.00. Bertarikh: 4 DISEMBER 2024 TT ( YASMIN BINTI ABDUL RAZAK ) Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 2 KUALA LUMPUR