This order was granted by Justice Bhupindar Singh a/l Gurcharan Singh Preet. Defendant’s case [2]. The defendant, Jawatankuasa Surau Al-Karamah, applies to 85 set aside the Order for Possession dated 23.10.2023 on the grounds that the said order was obtained in breach of natural justice. The defendant contends that they were never properly served with the originating summons or Affidavit in Support, and thus were denied the opportunity to respond. It asserts that 90 Surau Al-Karamah is situated on a public road reserve, not on the plaintiff’s titled land, and therefore the plaintiff lacks locus standi to seek an eviction. The defendant further contends that the appropriate authority to issue eviction, if any, would be the State Authority or the local council. It also argues that the Order 95 for Possession should be set aside under Order 89 Rule 8 as it constitutes an irregular judgment. Lastly, the defendant denies the surau’s deregistration and maintains it still functions lawfully, raising triable issues that merit a full hearing on the merits. Plaintiff’s case 100 [3]. The plaintiff, Hartanah Kinta Development Sdn Bhd, opposes the defendant’s application to set aside the Order for Possession granted on 23.10.2023, arguing that the order was validly obtained under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff asserts it is the registered proprietor of the subject 105 lands and that the surau was constructed without consent, encroaches on its titled property, including reserved road areas, which are still under its control pending formal surrender to local authorities. Plaintiff further contends that proper service of the originating process was effected via personal service and was 110 affixation at the surau. The plaintiff contends the defendant lacks locus standi, as the surau’s registration was cancelled by JAIPk, and that the prior civil suit filed by the defendant on similar grounds was withdrawn without liberty to refile. The plaintiff maintains that the application here is an afterthought, 115 constitutes an abuse of process, and should be dismissed to preserve the finality of judicial orders. Issues for determination a) Whether the defendant’s application is an Abuse of Process. b) Whether the Order for Possession under Order 89 was lawfully 120 and properly obtained. Order 89 – Defendant’s Application is an Abuse of Process [4]. The Court observes that the defendant, together with 60 others, had previously commenced Civil Suit No. AA-22NCvC-14- 02/2024 to dispute the plaintiff’s proprietary rights and to assert 125 claims concerning the occupation and status of Surau Al-Karamah. The plaintiff in that earlier suit was named as the 5th defendant. The earlier suit was based on the same factual circumstances and legal issues now raised in the present application. However, the said suit was voluntarily withdrawn by 130 the defendant and the 60 others against the plaintiff without liberty to refile. As such, the defendant is now estopped from reopening identical issues under the guise of a setting aside application. [5]. The Court further notes that the plaintiff’s current claim under 135 Order 89 is supported by religious authorities. It is to be noted that the Jabatan Agama Islam Perak (JAIPk), by official letter dated July 2023, cancelled the registration of Surau Al-Karamah. This cancellation was not challenged or reversed, and the Majlis Agama Islam Perak (MAIPk) has similarly 140 acknowledged the need to relocate the surau. These developments, endorsed by the competent religious bodies entrusted with governance of Islamic institutions in the State of Perak, directly undermine the defendant’s standing and right to resist possession. 145 [6]. Given that the surau has been formally deregistered and is no longer recognised under the relevant religious enactments, the defendant, being a non-incorporated and unrecognised committee, lacks locus standi to mount any opposition to the plaintiff’s recovery of possession. The assertion of prejudice or 150 irreparable harm by the defendant rings hollow in light of these facts and is, at best, speculative. [7]. The defendant’s current application, therefore, appears to be a calculated attempt to relitigate issues previously abandoned. Such conduct not only amounts to an abuse of the Court’s 155 process but also threatens to erode the principle of finality in litigation. To permit this application would be to encourage piecemeal and strategic litigation, inconsistent with the efficient administration of justice. The Court must guard against the misuse of judicial process and uphold the integrity of its orders, 160 particularly where the underlying possession claim is substantiated by legal title and affirmed institutional support from JAIPk and MAIPk. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the defendant’s application to set aside and holds that the Order for Possession ought to stand. 165 Validity and Regularity of Order Obtained Under Order 89 [8]. The Court finds that the Order for Possession dated 23.10.2023, obtained by the plaintiff pursuant to Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, is both procedurally regular and substantively meritorious. The plaintiff is the undisputed 170 registered proprietor of six titled parcels of land (PN 411938 to PN 412021) located in Mukim Hulu Kinta, Daerah Kinta, Perak. The plaintiff has adduced conclusive evidence, including a registered survey plan (Plan No. JP/24/IP/6860/T1), which clearly establishes that Surau Al-Karamah, along with its 175 perimeter fencing, is erected squarely upon the plaintiff’s registered lands. [9]. The application under Order 89 was properly and lawfully served upon the defendant, both by personal delivery to the surau’s treasurer and by affixation at the premises on 180 7.11.2023, in accordance with procedural rules. The defendant was thereby afforded the full opportunity to respond. However, they failed to enter an appearance or file any affidavit in opposition prior to the grant of the Order. The Court is satisfied that the Order was obtained regularly and in accordance with 185 due process. [10]. Accordingly, the defendant cannot now complain of procedural unfairness or seek to invalidate the Order through an application that is reactive and belated. The plaintiff’s entitlement to possession is well-founded in law and fact, and the grant of the 190 Order reflects the proper exercise of the Court’s discretion under Order 89. Conclusion [11]. The Court concludes that the Order for Possession dated 23.10.2023 was lawfully and properly obtained. The plaintiff’s 195 title is undisputed, service was validly effected, and the surau is situated on the plaintiff’s land. The defendant’s application is a belated afterthought, lacks locus standi, and constitutes an abuse of process. There is no triable issue arising. Accordingly, the application to set aside is dismissed with costs of RM5000, 200 and the Order for Possession shall remain valid and enforceable. 205 Dated : 29 August 2025 [MOSES SUSAYAN] 210 JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 215 For the Plaintiff : Uza Najiera binti Mohd Anuar Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Khong & Son] Ipoh, Perak 220 For the Defendant : Nurareena binti Said Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Azura Mokhtar & Low] Ipoh, Perak 225 (Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision) 230 Headnotes: Civil procedure – Application to set-aside – Order for Possession 235 under O.89 ROC 2012 – Defendant alleged non-service, breach of natural justice, and lack of locus standi – Surau committee claimed land was public reserve – Plaintiff proved registered title and valid service – Prior suit withdrawn without liberty to refile – Surau deregistered by JAIPk, confirmed by MAIPk – Defendant lacked 240 standing – Abuse of process – Order for Possession lawfully obtained – Application dismissed with costs.