Any judgment or order made under rule 2(3) may be set aside by the 25 court, on the application of the party, o such terms, if any, as it thinks 26 just.” 27 28 [30] The RH is bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Faisal @ 29 Ibrahim Siraj & Anor v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors 30 [2024] 2 MLRA 146 which has held that Order 34 Rule 2(4) is applicable 1 by way of a setting aside application and not appeal. 2 3 [31] In the present case the Court had on 13.12.2024 directed parties in 4 particular the RH to file his Reply and/or Cross Petition on or before 5 20.1.2025 and had strictly informed the RH that the Court will proceed to 6 enter judgment if not complied with. 7 8 [32] Notwithstanding these directions, the RH had not complied with the 9 court’s directions. Instead he merely repeated his refusal to accede to the 10 reliefs claimed by the PW. By right the RH should have filed his Reply to 11 the Divorce Petition on or before 20.1.2025. In my view there were 12 repeated failures by the RH to comply with the directions given by the 13 Court, hence the Court was compelled to enter judgement in favour of the 14 PW for the reliefs claimed in Paragraph 5 of her Amended Divorce 15 Petition. 16 17 [33] There are abundant case authorities to the effect that the orders and 18 directions of the Court must be adhered to and its non-compliance would 19 attract consequences not favourable to the party refusing to comply. 20 Ultimately the failure to comply may result in either the dismissal of an 21 action or the judgment in favour of the other party. In this case the RH had 22 never offered any good reasons for his non-compliance of the express 23 directions of the Court. 24 25 [34] Although the Court in this instance had refrained from issuing an 26 ‘Unless Order’ it bears mention that any directions given by the Court at 27 any sitting are pre-emptory in nature and must be complied with. This was 28 illustrated in the case of Koh Heng Jin v Gan Kooi Ann [2015] CLJU 1 1244 where the Court of Appeal held as follows : 2 3 “[40] In our view even though the learned judge did not issue an “unless 4 order”, O. 34 r. 2(2) of the ROC clearly contemplates that orders and 5 directions issued by the court during pre-trial case management are 6 peremptory in nature as O.34 r. 3 of the ROC confers on the court the 7 power to, inter alia, strike out a party’s claim either on its own motion or 8 upon the application of any party, in the event that such party defaults in 9 complying with any order and/or directive issued by the court under the 10 said O. 34 r. 2(2).” 11 12 [35] Therefore the legal position as it stands now is that the presence or 13 absence of an unless order does not fetter the Court’s discretion to strike 14 out or enter judgment against the recalcitrant party. 15 16 [36] It cannot be underscored enough that an order of Court must be 17 respected and complied with. Disregarding court orders with impunity will 18 otherwise comprise the integrity of the Court. 19 20 [37] This Court must lay emphasis on the need for due compliance with 21 directions issued by the court. Despite the RH being reminded of the need 22 to comply at every attendance before it, he failed to do so. The RH cannot 23 fall back with the excuse that he was not legally represented. The rules of 24 procedure apply to all, whether legally represented or not. Ignorance of 25 the law is without merits as the directions to the RH to appoint legal 26 representation and file his Reply/Cross-petition is not something too 27 difficult to comprehend. Be that as it may the RH had more than eight (8) 28 months since the Divorce Petition was served on him to decide on his next 29 course of action. On this note the Defendant has never offered any reason 30 as to why he had not taken the trouble to file his Reply and/or Cross- 1 Petition within the time specified. 2 3 [38] Furthermore, the RH had never claimed that he was too 4 impoverished to appoint legal counsel of his own choice. The Court had 5 given many indulgences to the RH but he had, it seemed, taken 6 advantage of the Court’s kindness. Unfortunately, despite the ample time 7 given the RH has failed to comply with the directions even in the face of 8 being warned that the Court will strike out his action. 9 10 [39] It is to be noted that there was a complete absence of any effort on 11 the part of the RH to file his Reply/Cross Petition to the PW’s Divorce 12 Petition despite his assertions that he disputed the claim. It is worthy to 13 note too that throughout this period the RH made no proactive effort to 14 appoint solicitors to act on his behalf. Assuming that the RH was genuinely 15 resolute in defending his position, he should have made haste in filing his 16 Reply well before the time stipulated for doing so. 17 18 [40] I am disappointed with the conduct of the RH over his non- 19 compliance despite after having on the last date warned him that the Court 20 may proceed to allow the PW’s claim in the event of any non-compliance 21 with the Court’s directions and despite the express reminder by the Court 22 to do so, the RH has failed to do the same. 23 24 [41] I respectfully hold the view that courts have to be firm with litigants 25 and not waste its valuable time and resources in order to ensure the 26 efficient administration of justice move smoothly. A clear message must 27 be sent to all and sundry that court orders are made to be complied with. 28 [42] The RH is well aware of the directions of the Court to file his 1 response to the PW’s Divorce Petition but he did not. Given the RH’s non 2 compliance of the Court’s specific order, this Court was of the view that it 3 had the powers to pronounce a Decree Nisi as well as allow the reliefs 4 sought by the PW as prayed for in Prayer 5 of the Divorce Petition. 5 6 [43] In any event based on this Court’s assessment of the facts of this 7 case a key consideration for the Court to take into account is that the PW 8 and RH were in disagreement with only two issues, one that dealt with the 9 matrimonial property and the other with the quantum of child maintenance 10 to be paid by the RH. 11 12 [44] Since these were the only 2 issues to be resolved, I was of the view 13 that it could be dealt with summarily without the need to proceed to a full 14 trial. Parties had previously undergone a round of mediation at the 15 Mediation Centre as well as before me and they had articulated and 16 defended their respective reasons for their stand in regard to the property 17 in question. 18 19 Matrimonial Property 20 [45] The law as it stands now is well-settled. Any property purchased 21 during the marriage of the parties forms part of the matrimonial property. 22 23 [46] The law in regard to the division of matrimonial assets is prescribed 24 in section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 which 25 reads as follows : 26 27 “Section 76 - Power of court to order division of matrimonial assets 28