Kumaravel A/L Ragunadan v 1. ) Oib Properties (C) Sdn Bhd (BB-B52C-16-08/2023)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN PETALING JAYA DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN WRIT SAMAN NO – BB-B52C-16-08/2023 ANTARA KUMARAVEL A/L RAGUNADAN [IDENTITY CARD NO.: 800215145369] [TETUAN GK GANESAN] …PLAINTIF

Lampiran

Lampiran 14 adalah permohonan Defendan Pertama seperti berikut: 1) Plaintif diarahkan untuk memberikan jawapan yang lengkap kepada Defendan Pertama dalam masa 14 hari dari Tarikh perintah ini untuk menjawab soalan-soalan dan/atau membekalkan butir-butir lanjut/informasi seperti yang ternyata dalam “Senarai soalan-soalan untuk butir-butir/informasi berkenaan Penyataan Tuntutan yang kini dilampirkan seperti dalam Lampiran “A” di dalam permohonan ini; 2) Sekiranya Plaintif gagal memenuhi perenggan ke 2 di atas, perenggan di dalam Penyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 4/8/2023 seperti yang ternyata dalam Lampiran “A” dibatalkan secara serta-merta menurut Aturan 18 Kaedah 12(3) dan Aturan 24 Kaedah 3, 7 dan 8 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; 3) Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; 4) Lain-lain perintah dan/atau relif yang sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [2] Alasan permohonan Plaintif adalah dinyatakan dalam affidavit sokongan yang mana antara lain menyatakan bahawa: 1) Dalam proses Defendan Pertama menyediakan pembelaan kepada Tuntutan Plaintif, Defendan Pertama mendapati bahawa butir-butir penting dan relevant telah tertinggal. Ia amat menyusahkan Defendan Pertama dan mustahil bagi Defendan Pertama menyediakan perbicaraan penuh dengan ketiadaan butiran spesifik tentang peristiwa yang didakwa oleh Plaintif dalam Penyataan Tuntutan tersebut. 2) Defendan Pertama telah menulis kepada Plaintif melalui surat bertarikh 3/11/2023 meminta butir-butir lanjut dalam bentuk “further and better particulars” dikemukakan oleh Plaintif. 3) Plaintif melalui jawapan surat peguamcara mereka enggan/gagal memberikan apa-apa jawapan kepada Defendan Pertama tentang soalan-soalan yang dikemukan dalam surat dengan alasan ia adalah satu “fishing expedition”. 4) Permintaan Defendan Pertama seperti dalam lampiran A tersebut adalah munasabah dan amat diperlukan untuk membolehkan Defendan Pertama menyediakan kes bagi pembelaan terhadap tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama. 5) Defendan Pertama tidak boleh menyediakan kes untuk membela tuntutan Plaintif pada tahap ini memandangkan dakwaan Plaintif dalam Penyataan Tuntutan adalah terlalu awam dan/atau tidak spesifik dan/atau tidak dijelaskan oleh Plaintif. 6) Plaintif tidak akan diprejudiskan oleh pemohonan Defendan Pertama ini dan ia akan menjimatkan masa dan kos keseluruhan tindakan kerana perbicaraan penuh akan dapat dijalankan dengan lebih lancar dengan kewujudan butir-butir lanjut tersebut. [3] Plaintif telah memfailkan Affidavit Balasan menentang Notis Permohonan tersebut yang mana antaranya menyatakan alasan seperti berikut: 1) Defendan Pertama mampu dan telah memfailkan Pembelaan mereka pada 27/9/2023 tanpa memerlukan butir lanjut yang dipohon. 2) Defendan Kedua juga mampu dan telah memfailkan pembelaan mereka pada 27/9/2023 tanpa perlu membuat permohonan bagi “further and better particular” seperti ini. 3) Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama dibuat selepas Pliding ditutup. 4) Defendan Pertama tidak merizabkan hak mereka untuk memfailkan Notis Permohonan ini dalam Pembelaan mereka dan ini menunjukkan bahawa Defendan Pertama mampu memfailkan Pembelaan tanpa keperluan bagi butir-butir lanjut sebagaimana di pohon dalam Notis Permohonan. 5) Kesemua 16 bahagian dan 62 soalan-soalan tersebut keseluruhannya dikemukakan oleh Defendan Pertama adalah bersifat remeh, berbentuk ulangan dan tidak sesuai dijawab pada peringkat ini. 6) Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah dan sengaja dibuat bagi melengahkan pelupusan tindakan ini. 7) Soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan adalah berbentuk soalan pemeriksaan utama yang sepatutnya dimasukkan ke dalam penyataan saksi Plaintif-Plaintif. Defendan Pertama berhak untuk membuat pemeriksaan balas bagi soalan-soalan tersebut dan boleh dimajukan kelak semasa perbicaraan. 8) Plaintif akan memberi keterangan bagi isu-isu yang relevan berkaitan dengan kes Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua semasa perbicaraan kelak. 9) Plaintif juga akan mengemukakan keterangan saksi pakar bagi membuktikan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua kelak. 10) Defendan Kedua yang merupakan arkitek bagi Defendan Pertama akan memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. 11) Butir-butir yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif dalam Penyataan Tuntutan adalah mencukupi berkenaan asas (nature) tuntutan Plaintif yang mematuhi kehendak undang-undang. 12) Defendan Pertama tidak memplidkan prejudis yang dialaminya bagi menjustifikasikan Notis Permohonan tersebut. 13) Defendan Pertama tidak mungkin sama sekali terkejut dengan Pliding Plaintif memandangkan Defendan Pertama mampu dan telah memfailkan pembelaan sebelum pemfailan Notis Permohonan tersebut. 14) Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama adalah satu proses “fishing expedition” yang wajar tidak dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah. [4] Mahkamah telah meneliti Notis Permohonan yang difailkan oleh Defendan Pertama yang mana ia tidak dinyatakan di bawah peruntukan apa ia dibuat. Walau bagaimanapun, bagi permohonan di bawah “Butir-butir lanjut” (further and better particular), Mahkamah merujuk kepada peruntukan di bawah: i) 1. Aturan 26 Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 26 Interrogatories Discovery by interrogatories (O. 26 r. 1) (1) A party to any cause or matter may apply in Form 44 to the Court for an order- (a) giving him leave to serve on any other party interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the applicant and that other party in the cause or matter; and (b) requiring that other party to answer the interrogatories on affidavit within a specific period of time which shall not be less than fourteen days from the date of service of the interrogatories. (2) A copy of the proposed interrogatories in Form 45 shall be served together with the application for such leave. (3) On the hearing of an application under this rule, the Court shall give leave as to such only of the interrogatories as it considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs; and in deciding whether to give leave, the Court shall take into account any offer made by the party to be interrogated to give particulars or to make admissions or to produce documents relating to any matter in question. ii) 12. Aturan 18 Kaedah 12 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Particulars of pleading (O. 18 r. 12) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), every pleading shall contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleaded including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words- (a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies; and (b) where a party pleading alleges any condition of the mind of any person, whether any disorder or disability of mind or any malice, fraudulent intention or other condition of mind except knowledge, particulars of the facts on which the party relies. (1A) No party shall quantify any claim or counterclaim for general damages. (2) Where it is necessary to give particulars of debt, expenses or damages and those particulars exceed three folios, they shall be set out in a separate document referred to in the pleading and the pleading shall state whether the document has already been served and, if so, when, or is to be served with the pleading. (3) The Court may order a party to serve on any other party particulars of any claim, defence or other matter stated in his pleading, or in any affidavit of his to stand as a pleading, or a statement of the nature of the case on which he relies, and the order may be made on such terms as the Court thinks just. (4) Where a party alleges as a fact that a person had knowledge or notice of some fact, matter or thing, then, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), the Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, order that party to serve on any other party- (a) where he alleges knowledge, particulars of the facts on which he relies; and (b) where he alleges notice, particulars of the notice. (5) An order under this rule shall not be made before service of the defence unless, in the opinion of the Court, the order is necessary or desirable to enable the defendant to plead or for some other special reason. (6) Where the applicant for an order under this rule did not apply by letter for the particulars he requires, the Court may refuse to make the order unless the Court is of the opinion that there were sufficient reasons for an application by letter not having been made. (7) The particulars requested or ordered and supplied shall be served in accordance with Form 31. iii) Aturan 24 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 3. Order for discovery (O. 24 r. 3) (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rules 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party. (2) (There is no paragraph (2)) (3) (There is no paragraph (3)) (4) The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under paragraph (1) are as follows: (a) the documents on which the party relies or will rely; and (b) the documents which could- (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party's case; or (iii) support another party's case. [5] Penyataan Tuntutan adalah merujuk kepada tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan. Dalam tindakan ini Plaintif telah memplidkan kes mereka dan Defendan Pertama serta Defendan Kedua telah memfailkan pembelaan. Oleh demikian, dakwaan Defendan Pertama bahawa ia adalah mustahil untuk Defendan Pertama bersedia dengan perbicaraan adalah tidak ada kena mengena dengan pliding dan pembelaan kes masing masing. [6] Plaintif telah memplidkan kes mereka. Tugas Defendan-Defendan adalah untuk membela tindakan. Fakta material telah diplidkan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan telah mampu memfailkan pembelaan berdasarkan tuntutan dan fakta yang dikemukakan. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Aturan 18 Kaedah 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 7. Facts, not evidence, to be pleaded (O. 18 r. 7) (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rules 10, 11 and 12, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits. (2) Without prejudice to paragraph (1), the effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in the pleading shall, if material, be briefly stated, and the precise words of the document or conversation shall not be stated, except in so far as those words are themselves material. (3) A party need not plead any fact if it is presumed by law to be true or the burden of disproving it lies on the other party, unless the other party has specifically denied it in his pleading. (4) A statement that a thing has been done or that an event has occurred, being a thing or event the doing or occurrence of which, as the case may be, constitutes a condition precedent necessary for the case of a party is to be implied in his pleading. [7] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Lampiran A yang dilampirkan oleh Defendan Pertama dalam Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 14. Secara keseluruhannya, terdapat 16 set soalan dikemukakan untuk dijawab oleh Plaintif. [8] Jika diteliti set soalan yang dikemukakan untuk dijawab oleh Plaintif, kebanyakkan merujuk kepada “Approved Layout Plans”, bilakah Plaintif membuat aduan, apakah jawapan kepada aduan Plaintif oleh Defendan Pertama dan sebagainya. [9] Pada pandangan Mahkamah, beban untuk membuktikan kes adalah terletak pada pihak Plaintif. Jika Defendan Pertama ingin mencabar keterangan Plaintif atau kes Plaintif, soalan-soalan sebagaimana diajukan boleh ditanya kepada saksi semasa pemeriksaan balas. Tambahan pula, ia terletak kepada Plaintif untuk menentukan siapa saksi yang mereka akan panggil memberi keterangan. Tugas dan beban terletak di tangan masing-masing. Mahkamah tidak perlu tentukan apakah soalan atau saksi yang perlu dipanggil bagi membuktikan/membela tuntutan masing-masing. [10] Pada pandangan Mahkamah, set-set soalan yang dikemukakan oleh Defendan Pertama di lampiran A Notis Permohonan Lampiran 14 adalah lebih kepada pembuktian (evidence) dan ia bercorak kepada memancing keterangan (fishing expedition). [11] Walaupun terdapat peruntukan undang-undang sebegini, ia perlu digunapakai dengan sebaiknya dan Mahkamah perlu menggunakan budibicara dengan lebih bijak dan adil kepada pihak-pihak. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD & ORS v. RAUB AUSTRALIAN GOLD MINING SDN BHD[2021] 7 CLJ 145 yang memutuskan: “Kesimpulan daripada undang-undang yang dibenarkan fakta penting boleh dikemukakan dalam penghujahan. Prinsip pliding adalah untuk memberi pihak lawan notis tentang kes untuk menggalakkan litigasi secara adil dan efisien. Jika ada keraguan, pihak-pihak bebas untuk memohon butir-butir lanjut dan lebih jelas. Oleh itu, tidak terbuka untuk responden menyatakan terkejut atau prejudis atas isu-isu pliding ini.” [12] Mahkamah tidak nampak apakah kesukaran Defendan Pertama dalam bersedia kepada perbicaraan tanpa soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan dijawab sekarang oleh pihak Plaintif. Ia boleh dikendalikan kelak semasa perbicaraan. Dalam masa yang sama, Defendan Pertama juga telah mampu memfailkan pembelaan kes mereka tanpa keterangan-keterangan tersebut. [13] Mahkamah merujuk kes BATCHA AMMAL v. PONNACHI, FEDERAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR [1965] CLJU 11 yang memberi makna kepada konsep butir-butir lanjut (further and better particular) yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang seperti berikut: “The second part of the appeal is from another order of Ong J dated 9 September 1964. That was an order for further and better particulars made on an application by the defendant dated 14 August 1964. It ordered that further particulars be supplied in the form of an account from 25 February 1959, in the manner adopted in giving previous further and better particulars, showing how a balance of $84,000 had been arrived at. The complaint here is that the plaintiff was not ordered to give all the details which have been asked for, in particular the names of the servants or agents of the defendant firm to whom payments were alleged to have been made and goods to have been delivered. Now, the question of further and better particulars is essentially a matter of discretion and the object is to ensure that a defendant is informed with reasonable particularity as to the various matters which are alleged against him. In the present case, the various transactions are identified in the particulars already supplied in accordance with the Judge's order in the first place by the amount, in the second place by the date and in the third place, where this is appropriate, by particulars of the appropriate invoice or cheque. In the circumstances we think that the defendant has been given ample opportunity to enable her to defend and we therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal.” [14] Mahkamah berbesar hati merujuk kepada penulisan YAH dalam kes MI TECHNOVATION BERHAD & ANOR v. CHIN YONG KEONG & ORS [2024] CLJU 293 yang secara terpeinci menulis tentang isu ini dan dikemukakan seperti berikut: The law on further and better particulars [16] I begin with an outline of the law on further and better particulars, making application to the facts of the present case. [17] Firstly, the objective for further and better particulars is to ensure that a defendant is informed with reasonable particularity as to the matters which are alleged against him. (See the Federal Court case of Batcha Ammal v. Ponnachi [1965] CLJU 11; [1965] 2 MLJ 43 at 44). [18] In the instant suit, D1-8 have filed their respective defence and in the case of the Edelteq Group, its defence and counterclaim. Namely:- (a) D1's Statement of Defence (Enclosure 54), (b) D2's Statement of Defence (Enclosure 55), and (c) the 3rd to 8th Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (Enclosure 56). [19] The length of the defences and counterclaim would appear to suggest that D1-8 are capable of meeting the Plaintiffs' claim. On top of that, the 3rd to 8th Defendants were even able to mount a counterclaim. [20] Secondly, particulars may only be sought of matters arising from pleadings. Particulars of evidence will not be allowed. “In Wright v. Times Business Publications Ltd & Anor [1991] CLJU 9; [1991] 3 MLJ 12 at 21, the High Court said: "As for the further and better particulars of para (c), clearly what Norman Wright is requesting for is for the evidence of inconvenience, embarrassment and distress. It is well settled that the court will not order particulars of evidence." [21] In Skrine & Co v. MBF Capital Bhd & Anor and other appeals [1998] 3 CLJ 432 at 452, the Court of Appeal said: "At the heart of the dispute between the parties lies the well established principle that governs the law of particulars in the field of practice and procedure. It is this. A litigant is entitled to have from his opponent, particulars of facts relevant to the issues at stake in order to prevent surprise, but he is not entitled to have his opponent's evidence." [22] Thirdly, if the particulars sought for are within the knowledge of the defendant, such would not be allowed. (See the High Court case of Dato' v. Kanalingam v. Tommy Thomas & Anor and other actions [1998] 3 CLJ SUPP 429; [1998] MLJU 196). [23] In Chong Wei Kong v. Priworld Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] CLJU 1626; [2021] MLJU 1774, the High Court said: "[22] In fact, it is noted further that the Plaintiff is also asking for particulars for almost every paragraph of the Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim where the contents are similar in their nature such as places, addresses, dates, modes, methods, reasons, identity of persons, full descriptions of the facts and / or documents and also whether the facts stated exist in the form of writing or oral. Having read the particulars requested for in Appendix "X" of Enclosure 18 and the submissions herein, I agree with the defence counsel that some of the questions requested for are unreasonable and ridiculous notably on particulars such as in Paragraph 6.1, the nature of the financial difficulties and issues faced by him (the Plaintiff), which he himself should have knowledge of instead of inquiring from the Defendants. The same findings also applies for issues where he (the Plaintiff) executed the agreement as in Paragraph 12.1 or in Paragraph 16.1, whether the valuation by the Valuation Department and / or Inland Revenue Department of the said ¼ share was made orally or in writing. Here, the Plaintiff failed to explain how he could be taken by surprise by the non - disclosure of the above bearing in mind that such matters are evidential in nature, which the Plaintiff is not entitled to at this stage of the proceedings. The Defendants have already pleaded that the 2nd Defendant had sent by courier the legal documents prepared by the Plaintiff's appointed solicitor at his Port Dickson address for his execution, yet he requested for particulars of such facts. As correctly pointed out by the defence counsel, how would the Defendants know where he executed the agreement after he received it? These are matters within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, which is not the object of the application for further and better particulars as outlined in Dato Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik v. Krishna Kumar s/o Sivasubramaniam (supra)." [24] Via Enclosure 38, the Plaintiffs were bombarded with 33 pages of further and better particulars. There is a total of 225 questions asked. They seek answers to an array of questions. Wherein the contents are similar in nature such as modes, methods, places, addresses and identity of persons. [25] I consider such request for particulars to be unnecessary and oppressive. I agree with the Plaintiffs that D1-8 are able to meet the Plaintiffs' claim without having any of these questions answered at this juncture. [26] To compound matters, D1-8 even sought for particulars in respect of the averments made against D9. As per Questions no. 9, no. 10.3 and no. 16.3 of Enclosure 38. It is noted that D9 is separately represented by counsel. The fact that D1-8 are seeking for particulars in respect of D9 would seem to fortify the Plaintiffs' submission that Enclosure 38 is nothing more than an interlocutory bombardment and an abuse of the process of court. [27] Fourthly, it is imperative for the defendant to demonstrate why the particulars are required, and that the same are not within his knowledge. Otherwise, the request for particulars might be construed as a fishing expedition. [28] In MBf Capital Bhd & Anor v. Tommy Thomas & Anor (No 4) [1998] 2 CLJ SUPP 496; [1998] 3 MLJ 216 at 223 - 224, the High Court held: "If the party seeking the particulars does not affirm an affidavit stating why he needs the particulars, there is no way in which a court is able to judge for itself if the attempt to seek the particulars is genuine or whether in fact the applicant has no knowledge of the particulars sought. If bound under oath, a party has to aver to the truth of the situation. Otherwise, it can easily be construed that the request could be a fishing expedition to ferret out the evidence of the opposite party. To demand particulars without giving the other party the right to assess the demand and challenge it if necessary, is giving an unfettered right to a party to seek particulars by merely stating that he requires the particulars; and he alone remaining the best judge to decide whether he requires the said particulars or not." [29] Fifthly, what amounts to a fishing expedition has been aptly described as "a manifestation of an intention to go on a fishing expedition, in hope that something may get entangled in the net and finding some material upon which a charge could be hung". (See the High Court case of Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v. Kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd [2015] 10 CLJ 585; [2015] MLJU 774). [30] The Plaintiffs pointed out that their Statement of Claim ("SOC") for confidential information is divided into mainly four parts: (a) what are the machines which involve advanced technology manufactured by the Mi Group (paragraphs 18 to 21 of the SOC); (b) how the machines were designed and developed (paragraphs 22 to 30 and 68 to 72 of the SOC); (c) why the information relating to the machines are confidential in nature (paragraphs 31 to 33 of the SOC); and (d) the particulars of the confidential information (paragraphs 21 and 31 of the SOC). [31] Instead of reading the SOC as a whole, D1-8 appears to read the various paragraphs of the SOC in isolation. And to cherry pick them by submitting that a certain paragraph of the SOC, in isolation, is unclear or lack particulars. [32] However, a pleading must be read as a whole and in its proper perspective. The Federal Court in Melawangi Sdn Bhd v. Tiow Weng Theong [2020] 4 CLJ 1; [2020] 3 MLJ 677 at 689 - 690 held: "[39] It is very important to understand the context in which para 13 is pleaded. The pleading must be looked at as a whole. Admittedly, the manner and style of the plaintiff's pleading may render itself open to criticism. Still, reading it as a whole and in its proper perspective, in our judgment, by paras 12 - 15 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded and referred to all the allegations made by the defendant through the email and as such the plaintiff's pleaded case is not limited and confined to only one alleged defamatory statement in the email." [33] In Tracerco Asia Sdn Bhd v. Nor Hisham Mohd Nordin & Ors [2013] 7 MLJ 75, the High Court dismissed the defendant's application for further and better particulars. That case involved a similar cause of action for breach of confidence. The High Court said (at page 90): "[55] Parties cannot always expect the pleadings to be in neat parcels despite the provisions in the Rules of the High Court 1980 on how pleadings are to be structured. Parties continue to tell their tales in the manner best suit them, staying as close to the rules of good and proper pleading. ... [58] From the above, I therefore do not find the reasons given by any of the defendants genuine, that it is at all necessary or desirable, or that there is any special reason why the particulars sought be ordered. In fact, the defendants appear more than able to respond to the plaintiff 's claim. Contrary to their claims, as more than adequately illustrated in the affidavits filed for the defendants, I do not find that any defences that the defendants propose to file will be in the nature of bare denials, or anywhere close to that." [34] In summary, I find that the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient particulars for D1-8 to meet the claim. It is unreasonable and an abuse of the process of court for the Plaintiffs to be bombarded with the 33 pages of further and better particulars.” [15] Dalam hujahan Defendan Pertama ada dinyatakan tentang kedudukan pemfailan Pembelaan sebelum Notis Permohonan seperti ini perlu dibuat. Defendan Pertama merujuk kepada kes OSAL DISTRIBUTORS SDN BHD AND ANOR V PENERBITAN SAHABAT (M) SDN BHD [2007] MLJU 364. [16] Sekali lagi Mahkamah merujuk kepada Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Plaintif menuntut bagi kemungkiran Perjanjian JualBeli, representasi palsu serta gantirugi-gantirugi sebagaimana dinyatakan. Setiap pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif telah dijawab oleh Defendan Pertama dengan merujuk kepada perenggan-perenggan Penyataan Tuntutan yang dinyatakan. [17] Mahkamah masih berpendapat soalan-soalan yang diutarakan boleh dikemukakan pada peringkat perbicaraan dan saksi-saksi Plaintif dicabar pada ketika itu. Ia lebih kepada persiapan perbicaraan dan bukan sesuatu yang tidak dijangkakan. [18] Mahkamah juga setuju bahawa Defendan Pertama gagal memberikan sebab dan alasan apakah prejudis yang telah dialami oleh Defendan Pertama jika sekiranya soalan-soalan dan set-set pertanyaan yang dikemukakan tidak dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah untuk dijawab oleh pihak Plaintif pada peringkat ini. [19] Oleh demikian, secara kesimpulannya, Mahkamah telah menggunakan budibicara dengan sewajarnya dan membuat dapatan bahawa Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama di Lampiran 14 ditolak dengan kos RM2,000.00. Sekian untuk pertimbangan YAH. Disediakan oleh: Sazlina Safie ……………………. Sazlina Bt Safie Hakim Sesyen, Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Sivil, Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Tarikh :17/3/2024 Peguamcara Plaintif: EN. THINAGARAN A/L BATUMALAI [TETUAN GK GANESAN] Peguamcara DefenDan Pertama: CIK SOO SAN SAN [TETUAN PAUL ONG & ASSOCIATES] Peguamcara DefenDan KeDua: CIK RASHVENI DEVI A/P RAJAKUMAR [TETUAN OTHMAN HASHIM & CO.]