Chew Kea Sew v Kalidas A/L Komarawelo (PA-22NCvC-152-08/2020)

KALIDAS A/L KOMARA WELO

KASAEWAN A/L MANOHARAN (NO. K/P: 760214-07-5393) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGEMENT A. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION [1] This is the Plaintiff’s application vide Notice of Application dated 2.1.2024 (Enclosure 57) under Order 24 Rules 16 of Rules of Court for leave to strike out the Defendant’s defence due to the reason that the First Defendant has failed and/or refused to comply with the order dated 9.2.2023 (“the Order”). According to prayer 4 of the Order, the defence will be struck out by this honourable Court in the event the First Defendant refuses and/or fails to comply with the Order. The Order to be observed are as follows: - 25/02/2025 11:37:15 PA-22NCvC-152-08/2020 Kand. 98 [a] Defendan Pertama dalam tempoh masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah yang diarahkan menurut permohonan ini, atau tempoh masa lain yang diarahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk mengikrarkan afidavit menyatakan sama ada Defendan Pertama ada atau pernah ada pada semua masa yang material dalam milikan, jagaan atau kuasa Defendan Pertama dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan dengan penerimaan RM98,500.00 sahaja daripada Plaintif melalui Public Bank cek no. 166519 bertarikh 9.12.2019 yang diisukan oleh Tetuan Gan Teik Chee & Ho yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun CIMB Bank Berhad no. 8008683953 milik Defendan Pertama sebagai sebahagian harga pembelian premis yang beralamat No. 88-27-1, Persiaran Gurney, 10250 Georgetown, Pulau Pinang yang didirikan di atas hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Hakmilik Strata No. Geran 58491/M1/27/52, Seksyen 1, Bandar George Town, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang (kemudian dirujuk sebagai "Premis tersebut”) yang termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada dokumen-dokumen yang disenaraikan di Lampiran A yang dilampirkan pada Notis Permohonan ini; [b] Defendan Pertama meneruskan penzahiran bagi kesemua dokumen yang termasuk delam lingkungan permohonan ini atau sebarang dokumen yang boleh diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sehingga kesimpulan tindakan ini; [c] Defendan Pertama menyediakan kesemua dokumen dalam lingkungan Lampiran A untuk pemeriksaan Plaintif dalam tempoh masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah ini, atau tempoh masa lain yang diarahkan olch Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan salinan dokumen-dokumen yang relevan supaya pemeriksaan oleh Plaintif boleh dibuat; [d] Pembelaan dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sekiranya Defendan Pertama enggan dan/atau gagal untuk mematuhi Perintah yang selaras dengan permohonan ini; dan [e] Lain-lain. [2] The order was delivered by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant's solicitor, but there was no response provided by the First Defendant. Through a letter dated 20.10.2023, the Plaintiff once again requested the First Defendant to comply with the order, but this was rejected by the First Defendant through a letter from the First Defendant's solicitor dated 27.10.2023. [3] According to the letter dated 27.10.2023, the First Defendant refuses to fulfil their obligations under the Order for the following reasons: [a] “…your threat to execute the Order dated 9.2.2023 is baseless in view of the fact that the purported transaction of the Sale of the property that your client asserts is wholly fraudulent and unfounded”; and [b] “…furthermore the Honorable Court of Appeal Judge has found as a fact that there are serious issues of fraud and forgery. In that circumstances, it is wrong for you to execute the Court Order dated 9.2.2023’’. [4] The reasons provided by the First Defendant were entirely baseless and/or without merit. Although the Plaintiff's appeal against the decision of Enclosure 10 - application for Summary Judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, this does not absolve the First Defendant of their responsibility to comply with the discovery order dated 9.2.2023. Since the First Defendant has failed to comply with the Order, prayer 4 of the order can and must be enforced. C. DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION [5] In this case, there are serious issues which ought to be ventilated at a full trial. The Plaintiff’s previous application for Summary Judgment under Enclosure 10 was dismissed. Similarly, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the decision in Court of Appeal was also dismissed as the matter cannot be disposed summarily. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 57 is an abuse of the process of the Court. [6] In view of the High Court and Court of Appeal orders regarding the Summary Judgement, whatever application then made, in particular the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 40 which includes the payer to strike out the Defendant’s defence, it is not sustainable in fact and in law as the High Court and Court of Appeal had clearly finds that this matter should be ventilated at a full trial as there are serious triable issue. [7] The Plaintiff’s application vide Enclosure 57 to strike out the First Defendant’s defence is to subvert the findings and directions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. This act of the Plaintiff is an abuse of the process of Court. The Plaintiff cannot restore to enforce the Order dated 9.2.2023 by overriding the rules of law. Therefore, the First Defendant’s defence cannot be struck out summarily and ought to be ventilated at full trial. D. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [8] Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, I dismissed Plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 57 with no order as to cost. It is trite law that under Order 18, Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that— [a] it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; [b] it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; [c] it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or [d] it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. [9] The main reason the Plaintiff seeks to strike out the Defendant's defence is based on prayer 4 of the Order and due to the First Defendant's failure to comply with the said Order. However, I found that it would be unjust to strike out the First Defendant's defence solely on the grounds that the First Defendant has failed to comply with the Order. More so in a situation where the Plaintiff is already aware that following their application for Summary Judgment, YA Hakim Tun Abdul Majid had decided that it is not a fit case for Summary Judgement to be entered against the Defendants and that the matter should proceed to full trial. This was also affirmed by Court of Appeal. [10] Following the Court of Appeal's decision and given that the pleadings have been properly filed by the parties, the Plaintiff should proceed with the filing of pre-trial documents and be ready for trial. However, instead, the Plaintiff has delayed by filing unnecessary applications, such as this Enclosure 57. The Plaintiff's action, to me, has amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. [11] Based on the above reasons, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 57 with no order as to cost. Subsequently, as the Plaintiff has not filed any pre-trial documents and was not ready for trial, at this stage, it is within my discretion to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statements of Claim with liberty to re-file the case and no order as to cost. SGD (ROZANA BINTI ALI YUSOFF) Judge High Court of Penang Dated on 24th February 2025. Counsels Hoh Lee Ian (Messrs Gan Teik Chee & Ho) on behalf of the Plaintiff. N. Ahilan (Messrs N. Ahilan & Associates) on behalf of the Defendants.