An appeal shall lie from any decision of a subordinate court in any proceedings relating to maintenance of wives or children, irrespective of the amount involved. [19] Atas isu kebolehrayuan ini saya merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor v. QM Print [2025] 9 CLJ 609 yang menyatakan rayuan masih boleh di buat terhadap keputusan penolakan permohonan pembatalan, tetapi dalam keadaan tertentu sahaja. Jika Mahkamah mendapati, terdapat keperluan untuk keterangan lisan diberikan, maka keputusan tersebut tidak boleh dirayu. Diperturunkan di bawah ini petikan berkaitan dalam penghakiman kes tersebut: [10] We concluded that, when s. 68(1)(f) CJA is construed holistically and harmoniously with s. 67 CJA and necessarily s. 3 CJA, it will be found to be applicable to cases where the High Court determines that further oral evidence needs to be adduced in order that it can arrive at a decision which finally disposes of the parties’ rights. In such instances, there is no right of appeal because the parties’ rights have not been finally disposed of or fully adjudicated upon. [11] As such, the court effectively defers the final determination in these cases to enable the adducing of further oral evidence. To allow an appeal at this juncture would effectively mean an unwarranted interruption in the flow of the legal process, given the substantive right of appeal that each litigant is entitled to once the parties’ rights have been finally disposed of. The failure to strike out at a preliminary point can comprise the subject matter of the appeal at the end of the trial. However, where the striking out is targeted at a specific point of law which has the capacity to determine the entire cause or action finally, the right of appeal accrues or vests at that point. Are The Dismissal Of Striking-out Applications Generally Appealable? [133] There is generally no final disposal of the parties’ substantive rights where a striking out application is dismissed and the matter is set down for trial for oral evidence to be adduced. All that the court is doing is deferring the adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights under the suit, until such oral evidence is adduced and considered such that the court can arrive at a decision which finally disposes of rights of parties. [134] There is simply a deferral of the ‘decision’ to a later date. The dismissal of such an application is not a ‘decision’ as envisaged in s. 3 CJA. Put another way, the court is exercising its inherent and statutory discretion to decide the matter fully at a later date S/N 6bB9rbKksUWKEqeyHpkckA after hearing oral evidence; the court is deferring the adjudication of the parties’ rights and not deciding upon it. [135] There is also no freestanding right to appeal a decision on the dismissal of a striking out. When a judge says that the court will adjudicate on the rights of the parties at a later date, there is no substantive right being taken away. What is taken away is the right to have the matter struck out preliminarily, instead of a full hearing, but this does not finally dispose of the parties’ rights, and is therefore not normally envisaged under s. 3 CJA as being a right giving rise to an appealable ‘decision’. [229] We reiterate again that the correct position in law is, as expressed in our primary mode of resolving these appeals, that s. 68(1)(f) CJA only bars appeals where there is no final disposal of the rights of parties. This is normally the case where the court of first instance determines that further oral evidence needs to be adduced in order that it can arrive at a decision which finally disposes of the parties’ rights. This was the position in law even pre-s. 68(1)(f) CJA on a proper appreciation of s. 3 CJA. In other words, s. 68(1)(f) CJA clarifies the law but does not change it. The instant appeals however did not turn on a need to hear further oral evidence but on preliminary points of law. As such, the dismissal of the striking out applications resulted in a final disposal of the appellants’ rights, as envisaged under ss. 3 and 67 of the CJA. Therefore, s. 68(1)(f) CJA did not preclude an appeal to the Court of Appeal from those first instance decisions. [20] Isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh plaintif dan defendan bukan isu undang-undang semata-mata. Isu-isu ini tidak boleh diputuskan melalui permohonan pembatalan pliding, kerana saksi perlu dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan dan diperiksa balas. [21] Seperti dinyatakan di dalam kes MT Ventures, hanya bagi permohonan pembatalan pliding yang diarahkan kepada isu undang-undang khusus sahaja yang membolehkan keseluruhan kes dilupuskan secara muktamad, hak untuk merayu terbit, seperti dinyatakan di bawah ini: However, where the striking out is targeted at a specific point of law which has the capacity to determine the entire cause or action finally, the right of appeal accrues or vests at that point. [22] Dari pliding dan afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan, mengguna pakai peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 28 dan keputusan di dalam kes MT Ventures, saya mendapati S/N 6bB9rbKksUWKEqeyHpkckA terdapat keperluan yang melimpah ruah untuk keterangan lisan diberikan kerana pertikaian fakta kedua-dua pihak adalah terlalu kuat dan tidak boleh diselesaikan melalui afidavit sahaja. TUNTUTAN BALAS DEFENDAN BUKANLAH SUATU YANG SECARA JELAS TIDAK BOLEH DIPERTAHANKAN. [23] Dari penelitian kepada pliding dan afidavit-afidavit kedua-dua pihak, secara amnya ada asas untuk defendan membuat tuntutan balas bagi pembayaran yang telah di buat. [24] Tuntutan balas ini tidak boleh diputuskan melalui permohonan pembatalan kerana ia bukanlah sesuatu yang tidak boleh secara jelasnya, dipertahankan. [25] Saya merujuk kepada kes berikut atas isu prinsip untuk membatalkan pliding iaitu BANDAR BUILDER SDN BHD v. UNITED MALAYAN BANKING CORPORATION BHD [1993] 3 MLJ 36 khususnya muka surat 10 dinyatakan: “The principles upon which the court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) of the RHC are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable' (see AG of Duchy of Lancaster v L & NW Rly Co 8). It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence (see Wenlock v Moloney & Ors 9). The authorities further show that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O 33 r 3 (which is in pari materia with our O 33 r 2 of the RHC) (see Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7). The court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable” [26] Oleh yang demikian, adalah tidak sesuai untuk menggunakan permohonan pembatalan pliding bagi melupuskan tuntutan balas defendan. S/N 6bB9rbKksUWKEqeyHpkckA KESIMPULAN [27] Di dalam kes kita permohonan yang di buat tidak termasuk dalam kategori yang dinyatakan di dalam kes MT venture iaitu isu undang-undang tertentu contohnya isu res judicata, locus standi atau imuniti. [28] Sebaliknya penolakan permohonan pembatalan tuntutan balas ini merupakan satu penangguhan kepada keputusan, sementara saksi-saksi memberi keterangan melalui keterangan lisan atau melalui penyata saksi. Dinyatakan di dalam kes MT Ventures seperti berikut: [116] On the other hand, where one needs further oral evidence to determine an issue, namely where said evidence is needed for the courts to properly adjudicate upon a claim, the matter is non-appealable as there cannot truly be said to have been a final disposition of rights. In other words, where the court is merely deferring its decision in order to hear evidence, the matter is non-appealable. And this indeed will be the case in a majority of striking out applications where the court exercises its jurisdiction on the basis that it needs to hear further evidence in order to adjudicate on the matter fully. PENUTUP [29] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, permohonan plaintif untuk membatalkan tuntutan balas defendan ditolak dengan kos. Bertarikh pada hari ini 21/11/2025. Zaman Mohd Noor Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur S/N 6bB9rbKksUWKEqeyHpkckA