H.S. (D) 123554, PT 50044, all of which are within Section 41, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Applicant’s Land"). [10] The Applicant’s stand is straightforward; having performed their part of the Joint Venture Agreement, paid full compensation as awarded by the Land Administrator and being issued with new land titles, the Applicant expects to be able to evict all the occupiers of the Applicant’s Land. [11] There are 179 respondents (should have been named as “Defendants”) in this action. In the intitulement, the names of 178 respondents are stated. The 179th Respondent is stated as: “TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH-HARTANAH TERSEBUT”. [12] As mentioned above, only 23 out of the 178 respondents have appointed solicitors to oppose the Applicant’s application before this Court, i.e. the 6th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 40th, 42nd, 44th, 45th, 68th, 74th, 77th, 119th, 126th, 128th, 132nd, 136th, 140th, 143rd, 145th, 146th, 154th, 161st, and 166th Respondent. These 23 respondents are occupying 17 out of the 26 lots of the Applicant’s Land. [13] As alluded to above, I had earlier allowed the Applicant’s application to evict the Respondents. The Respondents’ Stay Application [14] In her affidavit which was affirmed on behalf those 23 respondents, the 68th Respondent averred that there is another civil suit No.WA-22NCVC-709-11/2024 (“Suit No.709) pending which challenges the proprietorship rights of the Applicant’s Land. It was further averred that the Applicant had erected a zinc barrier on the Applicant’s Land, which is preventing those Respondents from accessing their homes. [15] The Respondents seek a stay of the eviction order, citing Suit No.709 and their pending appeal as special circumstances, and submitting that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if there is no stay ordered. The Applicant’s Position [16] The essence of the Applicant’s objection is that there are no special circumstances to justify a stay order, and that the Applicant should not be deprived of its rights to commence development of the Applicant’s land without delay. Analysis of the Facts and Law [17] Even though I had found – and as explained thoroughly in my Grounds of Judgment (see [2025] MLJU 1420) in respect of the Applicant’s substantive application – that the Respondents have no right to continue to occupy the Applicant’s Land, I am of the view that this Court should not ‘shut out’ the Respondents completely, and a short stay for a fixed period would be justified. I hold this view because my decision to allow the Applicant’s substantive application was based primarily on my interpretation of Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 and s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 – and not just on finding of facts. Even though it is my humble view that I have construed the law accurately and applied it to the facts of this case correctly, I must bear in mind that the Court of Appeal has the power to overrule my decision. [18] Further, Order 89 rule 6(3) Rules of Court 2012 empowers this Court to fix the time for the Respondents to vacate the Applicant’s Land. I had earlier fixed 60 days from the date of the eviction order. Obviously, the period of 60 days has not been sufficient for the Respondents to vacate, especially when the Applicant had erected a zinc barrier barring the Respondents from accessing their homes – which would bar them from moving out their belongings. [19] If any authority is required over and above the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, I would rely on Order 45 rule 11 Rules of Court 2012 to grant a stay for a fixed period of only one month. The said rule empowers this Court to consider matters which have occurred since the date of the order – which in this case was the Applicant’s act of erecting the zinc barrier which prevented the Respondents from having access to their homes before the expiry of the 60 days period stipulated in this Court’s earlier order. Order 45 rule 11 reads: Counsel for the Applicant: Abdullah Az-Zubayr Bin Awaluddin (Bushro Bin Mohamad Anuar and Nabilah Binti Hamlussalam with him) SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: MESSRS ZULPADLI & EDHAM Advocates & Solicitors No. 24 Jalan Perumahan Gurney, 54000 KUALA LUMPUR. Counsel for the Respondents: Norazura Binti Mohamed Mokhtar (Mizuraini Mohamad with her) SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MESSRS AZURA MOKHTAR & LOW Advocates & Solicitors No. 58m Medan Istana 1, Bandar Ipoh Raya, 30000 IPOH, PERAK. LEGISLATIONS REFERRED TO: