Che Rahmah Binti Abdullah v Khairul Azlan Bin Abdul Halim (22NCVC-456-10/2014)

The Defendant in this case applied to set aside an ex parte order of the Court allowing the Plaintiff’s application to enforce consent judgment obtained between the parties after a period of limitation of 6 years.

The Application is made by virtue of Order 32 Rule 6 Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules. Order 32 Rule 6 provides as follows:

Order made ex parte may be set aside (O. 32 r. 6) The Court may set aside an order made ex parte. Order 92 Rule 4 gives inherent discretion to the Court and is worded as follows:

Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92 r. 4) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Brief facts

The Consent Judgement dated 4/2/2016 between the parties was for the sale of property at No. 22, Jalan Tualang, Bukit Bandaraya, 59100 Kuala Lumpur (“the property”). The Consent Judgement was worded in the following manner:

Defendan hendaklah menjual hartanah yang dikenali sebagai No. 22, Jalan Tualang, Bukit Bandaraya, 59100 Kuala Lumpur ("Hartanah tersebut") dengan persetujuan Plaintif secara bertulis pada harga yang dipersetujui bersama-sama dan/atau pada harga yang tertinggi yang diperolehi dalam jangkamasa setahun daripada tarikh hari ini atau lebih awal jika dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pihak-pihak.

Daripada hasil jualan Hartanah tersebut, selepas ditolak jumlah tertunggak yang perlu dibayar kepada Standard Chartered Bank, Defendan berhak untuk mengekalkan sejumlah RM1,800,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia Satu Juta Lapan Ratus Ribu) sahaja sebagai penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad dalam tindakan ini ("Jumlah Penyelesaian"). Bakinya, iaitu hasil daripada jualan Hartanah tersebut selepas ditolak bayaran kepada Standard Chartered Bank dan Jumlah Penyelesaian, hendaklah dibayar kepada Plaintif melalui Peguamcaranya.

Sekiranya, hasil jualan Hartanah tersebut selepas ditolak jumlah tertunggak yang perlu dibayar kepada Standard Chartered Bank adalah tidak mencukupi untuk memenuhi jumlah penyelesaian atau mana-mana bahagiannya maka Plaintif hendaklah membayar Defendan Jumlah Penyelesaian atau mana-mana bahagiannya dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penerimaan hasil jualan oleh Peguamcara Penjual/Defendan.

Dengan syarat bahawa Plaintif mempunyai kebebasan untuk membayar Defendan Jumlah Penyelesaian dan semua jumlah tertunggak yang perlu dibayar kepada Standard Chartered Bank dan pihak berkuasa berkaitan, dan Defendan hendaklah apabila menerima Jumlah Penyelesaian penuh tersebut memindahkan Hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintif/nominee.

Plaintif hendaklah terus membayar ansuran bulanan kepada Standard Chartered Bank dan hendaklah juga terus menerima hasil daripada sewa Hartanah tersebut yang mana Plaintif kini menerima daripada perjanjian sewa.

Tiada Perintah mengenai kos dan pihak-pihak tidak ada apa-apa tuntutan terhadap satu sama lain.

Pihak-pihak mempunyai kebebasan Mahkamah untuk apa-apa arahan atau untuk memohon kepada Perintah selanjutnya.”

From the Judgment above one of the agreement between the parties was that on the sale of the property if there is excess sum after settlement of the arrears to the Bank and the agreed sum payable to the Defendant, the balance is to be paid to the Plaintiff.

The property was sold by way of an auction on 7/1/2025 for a sum of RM3.78 million and the Plaintiff applied to enforce the Consent Judgement fearing that the Defendant who is her son will not pay the excess sum after all dues are settled.

As the Consent Judgement was entered on 4/2/2014 and the application to enforce the Judgment is applied after a period of limitation of 6 years the Plaintiff applied for leave to enforce the Judgment.

This Court noting that the property was only sold in 2025 there is no delay in the enforcement of the Consent Judgement and any leave by the Court will not prejudice the defendant, allowed the Plaintiff’s application to enforce the Consent Judgment. The Defendant’s application to set aside the leave

One of the grounds of the application is that the Defendant is a registered owner of the property and therefore he has indefeasible title. The Plaintiff therefore has no right over the proceeds of sale especially as the Plaintiff had also breached the terms of the consent judgement.

In the Court’s view the issue in this case is not indefeasibility of title but compliance with the consent judgement to which the Defendant is a party. The terms of the consent judgement tare unambiguous and clearly spells out the agreement between the parties including the rights of the Plaintiff to the excess proceeds of sale.

Another ground is that the Plaintiff had made an ex parte application insinuating that the Plaintiff was not forthright with the court and had concealed material facts. In applying ex parte the Plaintiff has breached the principles of natural justice of the Defendant being right to be heard.

This ground of the Defendant is baseless as the Rules provides that an application to execute a Judgement can be by way of an ex parte application. Order 46 of the Rules provide that an application for leave to execute a judgement after the expiry of 6 years can be made ex parte.

(When leave to issue any writ of execution is necessary (O. 46 r. 2)

A writ of execution to enforce a judgment or order may not be issued without the leave of the Court in the following cases:

where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order;

Application for leave to issue writ (O. 46 r. 3)

An application for leave to issue a writ of execution may be made ex parte by a notice of application in Form 88.

The Defendant also claims that the Plaintiff’s application has breached the law of limitation of trying to execute the judgement after a lapse of 6 years and also should be disallowed on the principle of laches.

In the Court’s view both these grounds raised by the Defendant are misconceived as the Rules clearly allows execution of judgement after the lapse of 6 years albeit with the leave of court. Laches also do not apply as the Plaintiff had made the application soon after the sale of the property by auction.

In the upshot the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application to set aside the leave to execute the consent judgement, with a cost of RM2,000. Dated: 8.9.2025 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: -Tetuan Rahman Zulkhairi Tetuan Rahman Zulkhairi SA-11-13, Tower A, Menara Paragon Persiaran Bestari, Cyber 11 63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: -Tetuan Siva Nada & Associates Tetuan Siva Nada & Associates No. 81, Lorong Maarof, Bangsar Park Bangsar, 59000 Kuala Lumpur.