Kaliyamma A/P Tamil Selvam (BA-24NCvC-2434-10/2025)

This is an ex parte application by way of Originating Summons in which the Applicant seeks to be appointed as a temporary lawful representative of the estate of the deceased pending the issuance of a Letter of Administration. 02/01/2026 09:22:42

The application is premised on Order 15 rule 6A and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) and is supported by an affidavit affirmed by the Applicant.

Having considered the affidavit evidence and the nature of the relief sought, this Court is not satisfied that the threshold for granting such exceptional relief has been met.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed. These are the grounds of this Court.

The deceased died intestate leaving behind certain assets, including immovable property situated in Mukim Sepang, Selangor.

The Applicant avers that she is the daughter of the deceased and a beneficiary of the estate.

It is not disputed that, at the time of filing this application, no grant of representation had been issued in respect of the deceased’s estate.

The Applicant seeks an interim appointment on an ex parte basis for the stated purpose of preserving the estate pending completion of the probate process.

The issues that arise for determination are as follows:

whether this Court has jurisdiction to appoint an interim representative of a deceased estate under the ROC 2012;

whether the Applicant has demonstrated urgent necessity justifying the grant of ex parte relief; and

whether the affidavit evidence before the Court is sufficient to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the Applicant. THE LAW

This Court accepts that it has jurisdiction, in appropriate circumstances, to appoint an interim or ad hoc representative of a deceased estate pursuant to Order 15 rule 6A read together with the inherent powers preserved under Order 92 rule 4 ROC

2012.

However, such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and must be exercised with caution, particularly where the application is made ex parte and affects property forming part of a deceased estate.

The appointment of an interim representative is not intended to be routine, but rather to address situations where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent real prejudice to the estate.

Ex parte relief is, by its nature, an exceptional form of relief. The Court must be satisfied that the circumstances are such that notice to other interested parties is impracticable or that delay would cause material prejudice.

An applicant seeking ex parte relief bears a heightened duty of candour and must place before the Court all material facts relevant to the exercise of discretion.

The Court must also be satisfied that the relief sought cannot await determination in inter partes proceedings.

In matters relating to estate administration, the mere absence of a grant of representation does not, without more, constitute urgent necessity.

Urgency must be demonstrated by specific facts showing that the estate is exposed to imminent risk, danger, or loss that requires immediate judicial intervention.

(A) Absence of Urgent Necessity

The Supporting Affidavit asserts, in general terms, that the estate requires preservation.

However, the affidavit does not set out any concrete facts indicating that the estate is subject to immediate risk, such as impending foreclosure, auction, encroachment, dissipation of assets, or other forms of imminent prejudice.

In the absence of such particulars, the Court is unable to conclude that the circumstances are sufficiently urgent to justify the grant of ex parte relief.

General assertions of concern or apprehension, without supporting facts, are insufficient to meet the threshold of urgent necessity.

(B) Insufficiency of Affidavit Evidence

The Supporting Affidavit is not accompanied by essential documentary exhibits, including proof of death, documentary evidence of the Applicant’s relationship to the deceased, or official documentation relating to the status of the property.

Affidavit evidence must contain primary facts supported by material particulars. Where such evidence is lacking, the Court is constrained in its ability to assess the merits of the application.

The absence of corroborative documents materially undermines the evidential basis of the application.

(C) Ex Parte Nature and Non-Disclosure of Other Beneficiaries

The Applicant has not disclosed whether there are other beneficiaries to the estate, nor has any explanation been provided as to why notice could not be given to other interested parties.

This omission is material, particularly where the relief sought would confer interim control over estate assets that may be subject to the rights of others.

In ex parte proceedings, the failure to disclose such material information weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.

(D) Availability of Alternative Remedies

The Applicant has not shown that she has applied for a Letter of Administration or that such process would be ineffective or subject to undue delay.

The ordinary and proper course is for the Applicant to pursue the probate process through the established inter partes procedure.

Interim relief should not be used as a substitute for the substantive probate process in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The discretion conferred upon this Court under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 must be exercised judiciously and sparingly.

In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that the balance of justice favours the grant of interim relief, particularly given the absence of urgency and the potential impact on the rights of other beneficiaries.

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Applicant has failed to establish:

urgent necessity;

imminent risk to the estate; and

exceptional circumstances justifying ex parte intervention.

The Originating Summons is therefore dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Nothing in this judgment precludes the Applicant from pursuing the proper probate process or from filing a fresh application supported by cogent evidence should genuine urgency arise. Dated this 30th December 2025 -sgd- ………………………………….. Datin Asmah binti Musa Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Counsel for Plaintiff : Mr. Gunalan Paranjoth