untuk satu perintah alternatif agar pihak Tenaga National Berhad dan pengurusan KL Traders Square Joint Management Body Management Office membekalkan sumber elektrik dan kemudahan-kemudahan penyelenggaraan kepada unit C-20-12, KLTS, Jalan Gombak, Setapak, 53000 Kuala Lumpur tanpa sebarang gangguan sehingga perbicaraan penuh dan pelupusan kes ini; LATAR BELAKANG [2] Defendan telah pada semua masa yang “material” membayar bil-bil elektrik semasa dan yuran penyelenggaraan. S/N u1Kk8QmfvkupUpyRI8K7Q [3] Defendan dan keluarga Defendan yang terdiri daripada seorang Isteri dan tiga(3) anak perempuan yang berusia 13, 16 dan 20 tahun masing-masing telah tinggal di kediaman C-20- 12, KLTS, Jalan Gombak, Setapak, 53000 Kuala Lumpur sejak tahun 2018; [4] Plaintif memfailkan kes ini untuk mendapatkan balik pemilikan hartanah yang diduduki oleh defendan di alamat seperti dinyatakan di atas. [5] Pada 12.7.2024 bekalan letrik kediaman tersebut telah dipotong atas arahan plaintif. Selain dari itu pada 5.7.2024 pihak pengurusan KL Traders Square Joint Management Body telah membatalkan penggunaan kad akses defendan sekeluarga atas arahan plaintif. Pada 19.7.2024 kereta defendan telah dikunci oleh pihak badan pengurusan. [6] Sepanjang tinggal di rumah ini defendan telah membayar bil letrik, bil air dan semua yuran penyelenggaraan dan tiada sebarang tunggakan kepada pihak pengurusan. [7] Defendan telah menduduki rumah tersebut sejak tahun 2018 dan mendakwa telah membelanjakan sebanyak RM150,000.00 untuk pengubahsuaian rumah tersebut. [8] Defendan mendakwa plaintif juga telah berjanji untuk memberikan milikan rumah tersebut kepada defendan. Defendan telah menduduki rumah tersebut tanpa membayar sebarang sewa kepada plaintif. [9] Dalam tindakan utama, defendan membuat tuntutan balas terhadap plaintif untuk hak milik dipindah milik kepada defendan. Analisa dan keputusan [10] Permohonan Plaintif di bawah (Lampiran 7) adalah semata-mata untuk satu injunksi sementara sehingga tarikh perbicaraan dan pelupusan kes ini. Ini telah dengan jelas dipohon oleh Defendan di perenggan 4 (Lampiran 7) yang memohon seperti berikut:- “untuk satu perintah agar pihak Tenaga National S/N u1Kk8QmfvkupUpyRI8K7Q Berhad dan pengurusan KL Traders Square Joint Management Body Management Office membekalkan sumber elektrik dan kemudahan-kemudahan penyelenggaraan kepada unit C-20-12, KLTS, Jalan Gombak, Setapak, 53000 l Kuala Lumpur tanpa sebarang gangguan sehingga perbicaraan penuh dan pelupusan kes ini” [11] Saya mengikuti panduan yang diberikan di dalam kes KEET GERALD FRANCIS NOEL JOHN v. MOHD NOOR @ HARUN ABDULLAH & ORS. [1995] 1 CLJ 293 COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR di dalam memutuskan untuk membenarkan atau tidak permohonan defendan untuk mendapatkan injunksi yang menggariskan panduan seperti berikut: To summarise, a Judge hearing an application for interlocutory injunction should undertake an inquiry along the following lines:- First, he must ask himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him discloses a bona fide serious issue to be tried. He must, when considering this question, bear in mind that the pleadings and evidence are incomplete at that stage. Above all, he must refrain from making any determination on the merits of the claim or any defence to it. It is sufficient if he identifies with precision the issues raised on the joinder and decides whether these are serious enough to merit a trial. If he finds, upon a consideration of all the relevant material before him, including submissions of Counsel, that no serious question is disclosed, that is an end of the matter and the relief is refused. On the other hand if he does find that there are serious questions to be tried, he should move on to the next step of his inquiry; Second, having found that an issue has been disclosed that requires further investigation, he must consider where the justice of the case lies. In making his assessment, he must take into account all relevant matters, including the practical realities of the case before him. He must weigh the harm that the injunction would produce by its grant against the harm that would result from its refusal. S/N u1Kk8QmfvkupUpyRI8K7Q He is entitled to take into account, inter alia, the relative financial standing of the litigants before him. If after weighing all matters, he comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff would suffer greater injustice if relief is withheld, then he would be entitled to grant the injunction especially if he is satisfied that the plaintiff is in financial position to meet his undertaking in damages. Similarly, if he concludes that the defendant would suffer the greater injustice by the grant of an injunction, he would be entitled to refuse relief. Of course, cases may arise where the injustice to the plaintiff is so manifest that the Judge would be entitled to dispense with the usual undertaking as to damages (see: Cheng Hang Guan v. Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn. Bhd. 1988] 1 CLJ 435 (Rep);[1988] 3 MLJ 90). Apart from such cases, the Judge is entitled to take into account the plaintiff's ability to meet his undertaking in damages should the suit fail, and, in appropriate cases, may require the plaintiff to secure his undertaking, for example, by providing a bank guarantee; Thirdly, the Judge must have in the forefront of his mind that the remedy that he is asked to administer is discretionary, intended to produce a just result for the period between the date of the application and the trial proper and intended to maintain the status quo, an expression explained by Lord Diplock in Garden Cottage Foods Ltd. v. Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130 and applied in Cheng Hang Guan (supra). It is a judicial discretion capable of correction on appeal. Accordingly, the Judge would be entitled to take into account all discretionary considerations, such as delay in the making of the application or any adequate alternative remedy that would satisfy the plaintiff's equity, such as an award of monetary compensation in the event that he succeeds in establishing his claim at the trial. Any question going to the public interest may, and in appropriate cases should, be taken into account. A Judge should briefly set out in his judgment the several factors that weighed in his mind when arriving at his conclusion. S/N u1Kk8QmfvkupUpyRI8K7Q [12] Dalam kes ini saya telah membenarkan permohonan defendan untuk injunksi sementara kerana saya berpendapat terdapat isu serius yang perlu dibicarakan dan status quo perlu dikekalkan. [13] Saya juga mendapati jika injunksi ini tidak diberikan, pihak defendan akan mengalami mudarat yang lebih serius ang lebih serius berbanding plaintif. Kerugian plaintif boleh dipampas melalui wang jika di akhir kes keputusan kes memihak kepada plaintif. [14] Sebaliknya, defendan jika tidak dibenarkan permohonan injunksi sementara ini akan terus secara serta merta kehilangan tempat tinggal. [15] Dalam menimbangkan keimbangan keselesaan (balance of convenience) adalah lebih praktikal dan lebih selesa dan kurang mudarat untuk membenarkan injunksi pada tahap ini. [16] Sebagai rekod, kes ini telah dibicarakan pada 22.7.2025 dan menunggu hujahan kedua-dua pihak sebelum keputusan diberikan. Keputusan ditetapkan pada 30.10.25 PENUTUP [17] Atas alasan yang diberikan di atas permohonan injunksi dibenarkan seperti dipohon oleh defendan. Bertarikh pada hari ini 30.7.2025. Zaman Mohd Noor Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur S/N u1Kk8QmfvkupUpyRI8K7Q