if there is provision in the Rules to amend an original order so as to enlarge time specified. [18] These are well-recognised and accepted categories where the principle of finality as reflected in the rule of functus officio is not violated. [19] Where is this jurisdiction to amend or supplement the original sealed order found? It is found in the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. The superior courts possess a residual inherent jurisdiction to, inter alia, clarify the terms of an order and to make ancillary orders primarily to give effect to the decision or judgment handed down. It is a necessary jurisdiction to enable a court to ensure that substantive justice between the parties is served, so as to give effect to its primary decision, through the dispensing of procedural justice”. [emphasis mine] [14] Di dalam kes Sang Lee Co Sdn Bhd & Ors v Munusamy a/l Karuppiah (sole proprietor of MNN Consultancy Services, a firm) [2010] 5 MLJ 285, Mahkamah Persekutuan berhubung pindaan kepada perintah bermeterai, melalui penghakiman oleh Zulkefli FCJ memutuskan seperti berikut: “We are of the view that the application made by the defendants in encl 45 to amend the terms of the sealed order was not intended to alter, vary or set aside a perfected order but to correct the errors in the said order drawn up by the plaintiff’s solicitors which had failed to express the true intention of the court in granting an interim injunction restraining any party to deal with the subject land until the disposal of encl 3. It is to be noted that the court had not granted any order as per the application in encl 3 but the order that was drawn up by the plaintiff’s solicitors was in the form of encl 3 which had not yet been heard and determined by the court. The learned JC2 had made a finding that the sealed order that was drawn up by the plaintiff was clearly not in accord with the minutes in the court file and thus there occurred an error. Accordingly, it is our judgment that the learned JC2 was right in allowing the defendants’ application in encl 45. A related issue which is raised in this appeal is the question of whether the court is functus officio when it purports to rectify and amend the sealed order to reflect what was actually pronounced. We are of the view in the light of a clear difference and discrepancy between the terms of the sealed order as compared with the actual order pronounced by the learned JC1 on 27 June 2006, it was only right and proper that the sealed order be amended accordingly pursuant to O 20 r 11 of the RHC 1980”. [15] Bersandarkan kepada kedua-dua keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan ini, Mahkamah ini memutuskan menggunapakai kuasa inheren membenarkan permohonan pindaan ini kerana berpendapat ia tidak membawa akibat mengubah perintah asal (yang tidakpun dikemukakan rayuan oleh Defendan 1 atas perintah asal ini) tetapi membuat pindaan untuk memberi penjelasan berdasarkan kuasa yang diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah dan Defendan 2 menurut seksyen 471