such other order or relief that this Court deems fit and proper. [2] The grounds of this Notice of Application are set out in the Notice of Intention to Refer to Affidavits dated 7.11.2024 (Encl. 129), the Affidavit in Support of Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim affirmed on 30.10.2024 (Encl. 130) and the Affidavit in Reply of Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim affirmed on 9.12.2024 (Encl. 134). [3] The parties (Plaintiff and Defendant) in the respective suits are as follows: Suit 22: between Lin Woon Fui and Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim. Suit 23: between Lin Woon Fui and Dato’ Teh Chee Kian. Suit 31: between Dato’ Seri Tan Bee Geok and Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim. [4] By Order of Court dated 20.9.2022 (Encl. 21) vide application by the Defendant in Suit 31 it was ordered that Suit 31 is to be transferred and heard/tried together with Suit 22. [5] By Order of Court dated 26.10.2022 (Encl. 25) vide application by the Defendant in Suit 23 it was ordered that Suit 23 is to be transferred and heard/tried together with Suit 22. S/N mdzo2iQ8e0iYZlnsLSulKg [6] Effectively, by the above orders, both Suit 31 and Suit 23 are to be transferred and heard/tried together with Suit 22 in this Court. Representation [7] Initially, all the Plaintiffs in Suits 22, 23 and 31 are represented by Messrs. Nazri Aziz Masura Mak & Tan whilst in all Suits 22, 23 and 31 the Defendants are represented by Messrs. Shearn Delamore & Co. The representation of the Plaintiffs and Defendants remained the same for Suits 22 and 23. However, the Plaintiff in Suit 31 was represented by Messrs. Lee & Koh vide Notice of Change of Solicitors (Encl. 53 dated 15.6.2023) and thereafter represented by Messrs. S. Ravenesan vide Notice of Change of Solicitors (Encl. 145 dated 22.1.2025). Defendant’s submissions (Encl. 137 and 142) [8] The Defendant submits that although the application under Order 4 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 in respect of “consolidation of causes or matters” of suits is not identical to an Order for suits to be “heard/tried together” the principles underlying the two principle of law are similar. [9] The main objective of consolidation of cases is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The High Court in the case Federal Land Development Authority & Anor. v. Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Hj Abdul Samad & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 883 at p. 894 applied the legal principles and objectives in a consolidation operation in determining an application for suits to be “tried S/N mdzo2iQ8e0iYZlnsLSulKg together” pursuant to Order 4 rule 1 ROC 2012. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows: [18] The main objective of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort, and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action (see the Court of Appeal decision in Osaka Resources Sdn. Bhd. & Ors. v Foo Holdings Sdn. Bhd. And another appeal [2014] 1 MLJ 461). The conditions in O 4 r 1 are to be read disjunctively such that satisfaction of any one of the conditions would suffice. [10] The High Court in the case of Kumpulan Emas Bhd v. Dato' Lim Teng Lew & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 614 at p. 617 decided as follows: “What is the purpose of consolidation? [3] It is to save time and costs and is usually ordered when there appears to the court that there is 'some common question of law or fact bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest' of the subject matter of the actions so as 'to render it desirable that the whole should be disposed of at the same time'.” Plaintiff’s submissions (Encl. 139) [11] The Plaintiff’s counsel (Messrs S. Ravenesan) adopts the previous Plaintiff’s written submissions filed by Messrs Lee & Koh and has submitted that the Plaintiff will leave this application for this Court to decide. The Plaintiff S/N mdzo2iQ8e0iYZlnsLSulKg submits that the present application shall fall in limine as the defective Defendant’s Affidavit in Support (Encl. 131) and Affidavit in Support (No. 2) (Encl. 132) cannot be accepted and therefore has to be rejected and or expunged by this Court. As a direct consequence thereto, the present application automatically becomes unsupported and shall fall in limine. The Defendant’s Affidavit in Support (Encl. 130) and the Affidavit in Support (2) (Encl. 131) shall be disregarded as the Defendant relied on the Affidavit in Support and the Affidavit in Support (2) which was filed under different suit i.e. Suit No. 22. [12] The sole question to be answered in the present application is whether the change of solicitors is a valid ground to grant the order to sever both Suit No. 22 and Suit No. 31 and to allow the cases to be heard/tried separately and transfer Suit No. 31 to another Court. The Plaintiff prays that the Defendant’s application filed in Encl. 128 to be dismissed with costs. [13] The High Court in the case of Multiglow Corporation Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. SCG Consultants Sdn. Bhd. [2020] MLJU 1221 decided as follows: “[62] Judge shopping is an abuse of process and is not permitted. Abuse of process, by definition, is when a litigant uses the legal system by illegal, malicious, or perverted means. The focus of this doctrine is on protecting the integrity of the judicial process. There are no set requirements for proving abuse of process as it is a flexible concept, however, it is not an easy application to prove. The facts must be clear that abuse of process has occurred in order for the claim to be S/N mdzo2iQ8e0iYZlnsLSulKg dismissed. In the case of judge shopping, it is not always clear if the litigant’s goal is to get a new judge.” [14] The High Court in the case of Ravichanthiran a/l Ganesan v. Mat Shah bin Safuan [2019] MLJU 1677 decided as follows: “[48] This Court has to adopt a stringent approach towards solicitors who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the directions given by Court to adhere to timelines, and in cases where such delay is unjustified, the Court is minded to infer that such tactics are employed to deliberately cause prejudice to the other party, thus impairing the submission of opposing Counsel, and eventually compromising the adverse party’s case. It is also pertinent to note that Counsel for the JD had not explained to the satisfaction of the Court during the hearing of this Appeal, the reasons for the late filing of the Notis Niat. On this ground alone, the Notis Niat is strictly disallowed.” [15] The High Court in Maybank Finance Bhd v. Sharp Trillion (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors And Other Actions [1998] MLJU 339 decided as follows: “O.92 r.4 of the Rules of the High Court states that nothing in the Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the court to make an order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. This provision which arms the judge with an effective weapon, has never failed to be invoked by judges whenever the situation warrants it. In the course of utilising this S/N mdzo2iQ8e0iYZlnsLSulKg inherent power, the judge must ensure that it does not have the effect of overriding express provisions.” Analysis and Decision [16] At the onset of the oral submissions by parties, the Defendant’s counsel informed Court that by agreement between the Plaintiff’s counsel and the Defendant’s counsel, Suit 22 and Suit 23 are to be heard together after the disposal of Suit 31. In this regard, the Court is of the considered view that the Court may make the appropriate orders and directions to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action or proceedings including the manner in which the action or proceedings is to be conducted. (O. 34 r.