Court DecisionMY-HC

WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025

Seri Gembira Management Corporation v Roghini A/P Sinadurai (WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025)

High Court of Malaysia7 May 2026

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025 In the matter of Order 3 rule 5 Rules of Court 2012 And In the matter of Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 And In the matter of Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court Suit. No. WA-A72NCvC-2642-06/2024 BETWEEN SERI GEMBIRA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (Strata Registration No: 2522) (“MC”) ...APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

And

ROGHINI A/P SINADURAI (IC NO.: 870318-56-5204) 04/06/2026 08:24:30

WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025

Kand. 19

KASTHURI A/P SINADURAI (IC NO.: 890527-14-6354) ...RESPONDENT(S)/ DEFENDANT(S) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

A. Introduction

This was the Applicant’s application under Enclosure 1 for:

an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the learned Magistrate in Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court Civil Suit No. WA-A72NCvC-2642- 06/2024; and

leave to tender a certificate pursuant to section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950.

Both limbs were heard together. After hearing parties and considering the affidavits, cause papers, written submissions, and oral submissions advanced before this Court, the Court dismissed the application with costs of RM3,000.00 to the Respondents.

The Applicant has since filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of this Court’s decision dated 7.5.2026.

These are the full Grounds of Judgment of this Court.

B. Background Facts

The Applicant herein is Seri Gembira Management Corporation (“the Applicant”), whilst the Respondents are the Defendants in the proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court.

The decision sought to be appealed against was delivered by the learned Magistrate on 16.5.2025 in Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court Civil Suit No. WA-A72NCvC-2642-06/2024.

Preamble

Pursuant to the applicable procedural rules, the Notice of Appeal ought to have been filed within the prescribed timeline.

However, the present application for extension of time was only filed after a delay of approximately 100 days beyond the stipulated period.

The explanation advanced by the Applicant was that the delay arose from the advice of its previous counsel, which was said to have been reflected in the court minutes.

Simultaneously, the Applicant also sought leave to tender a certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 in relation to computer-generated documents intended to be relied upon in the appeal.

C. Issues For Determination

The issues before this Court were:

whether the Applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time to file the

Notice of Appeal; and

whether leave ought to be granted for the Applicant to tender a certificate pursuant to section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950. D. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Extension of Time

It is trite that the Court’s discretion to extend time is wide but must nevertheless be exercised judicially and upon established principles.

In exercising such discretion, the Court ordinarily considers:

the length of the delay;

the reasons for the delay;

the merits of the intended appeal; and

the prejudice occasioned to the respondent.

These factors are not exhaustive nor are they to be applied mechanically. The Court must consider the totality of circumstances in determining whether the justice of the case warrants the grant of an extension.

However, one principle remains firmly established, the longer the delay, the heavier the burden upon the applicant to furnish a cogent, satisfactory, and credible explanation accounting for the entire period of delay.

The discretion to extend time is not intended to operate as an automatic indulgence whenever delay occurs. Litigation must at some point attain finality.

Section 90A Evidence Act 1950

Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 governs the admissibility of computer-generated documents.

The certificate contemplated under section 90A is not a mere procedural technicality. It constitutes a statutory condition relating to admissibility and reliability of such evidence.

Consequently, where leave is sought to tender such certificate at a later stage, the Court must be satisfied that there exist sufficient and exceptional circumstances justifying the failure to comply at the material time. E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ISSUE 1: Whether Extension of Time Ought to be Granted

Length of Delay

The delay in the present case is approximately 100 days.

In the judgment of this Court, such delay is plainly inordinate.

The magnitude of the delay therefore imposes a substantial burden upon the Applicant to provide a full and satisfactory explanation accounting for the entirety of the delay period.

Explanation for Delay

The principal explanation advanced by the Applicant was that the delay arose due to the advice of previous counsel.

This Court accepts that in appropriate circumstances, mistakes or conduct of counsel may constitute a relevant factor in considering whether time ought to be extended.

However, it is equally well established that not every mistake, omission, or advice of counsel automatically entitles a litigant to an extension of time.

In the present case, the explanation provided was wholly lacking in sufficient particulars.

There was no satisfactory evidence before this Court explaining:

the precise nature of the advice allegedly given;

when such advice was given;

why the advice was accepted without further clarification or inquiry; and

what steps were taken by the Applicant thereafter.

Even assuming that such advice was indeed reflected in the court minutes, that fact alone does not automatically render the explanation satisfactory in law.

Most significantly, there remained no proper explanation accounting for the continued period of inactivity thereafter.

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation accounting for the entirety of the delay period, this Court was unable to conclude that the delay arose from anything other than insufficient diligence.

Merits of the Intended Appeal

The Applicant further contended that the intended appeal raised arguable issues concerning:

the alleged absence of any proper admission of debt; and

the alleged insufficiency of reliance upon statutory charges in light of disputes regarding liability, quantum, and procedural compliance.

Having considered these contentions, this Court was not persuaded that they disclosed sufficiently compelling or exceptional merits.

The issues raised by the Applicant pertain substantially to factual and evidential matters which were matters ventilated, or ought to have been ventilated, before the learned Magistrate during trial.

No clear error of law, jurisdictional error, or misapplication of legal principles was identified before this Court.

At its highest, the Applicant’s contentions merely demonstrated disagreements with the findings reached by the trial court.

Such matters, without more, were insufficient to justify the grant of an extension of time in the face of an inordinate delay exceeding 100 days.

Prejudice and Finality

This Court also considered the need for finality in litigation.

The Respondents are entitled to assume that litigation which has concluded and not been appealed within the prescribed time ought ordinarily to attain finality.

To excuse a delay of such magnitude absent satisfactory explanation would undermine certainty in litigation and prejudice the Respondents.

Conclusion on Extension of Time

Having considered the totality of circumstances, in particular:

the inordinate delay;

the absence of a satisfactory explanation accounting for the delay;

the lack of sufficiently compelling merits in the intended appeal; and

the need for finality in litigation,

this Court was not persuaded that this was an appropriate case to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.

Accordingly, the application for extension of time was refused.

F. ISSUE 2: Section 90A Application

In light of the Court’s decision refusing the extension of time application, the intended appeal itself did not proceed.

In those circumstances, the application seeking leave to tender a certificate pursuant to section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 was rendered academic.

Strictly speaking, it was therefore unnecessary for this Court to determine that limb of the application.

Nevertheless, for completeness, this Court was also of the view that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the late tendering of the section 90A certificate.

The requirement under section 90A is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being retrospectively cured as of right.

Permitting the Applicant to tender such certificate at a later stage would effectively allow the Applicant to remedy a substantive evidential defect after the fact.

Such course would prejudice the Respondents and would be contrary to orderly procedural conduct and evidential discipline.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances explaining the failure to comply at the material time, this Court would in any event have declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant on this limb.

G. Decision

For the reasons set out above, this Court ordered as follows:

the application for extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal was dismissed;

the application under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 was rendered academic; and

costs of RM3,000.00 were awarded to the Respondents.

This Court further reiterates that the discretion to extend time is intended to prevent injustice in deserving cases. It is not a mechanism to relieve parties from the consequences of prolonged inaction or insufficient diligence. Dated: 3rd June 2026 ………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Applicant : Chen Woon Yong Messrs. Chen Woon Yong & Co. (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Respondents :

Devika Balakrishnan

Messrs. Devika Law

Chambers (Jenjarom)

Advocates & Solicitors

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 7 May 2026
Case number: WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025
Coram: YA Puan Mahazan Binti Mat Taib
Practice area: Civil Procedure – Appeal – Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Application under O. 3 r. 5 Rules of Court 2012 – Delay of approximately 100 days – Whether delay inordinate – Whether explanation based on advice of previous counsel sufficient – Requirement to account for entire period of delay – Consideration of length of delay, reasons for delay, merits of intended appeal, prejudice and finality of litigation – Whether Court should exercise discretion to extend time – Application dismissed. Civil Procedure – Appeal – Extension of time – Merits of intended appeal – Alleged absence of admission of debt – Alleged insufficiency of reliance on statutory charges – Issues relating to liability, quantum and procedural compliance – Whether intended appeal disclosed sufficiently compelling or exceptional merits – Whether mere disagreement with trial court’s findings sufficient to justify extension of time – Application dismissed. Civil Procedure – Discretion of Court – Extension of time – Mistake or advice of counsel – Whether conduct of previous counsel automatically entitles litigant to extension – Necessity for satisfactory explanation supported by particulars – Whether explanation accounted for continued period of inactivity – Requirement of diligence by litigant. Evidence – Documentary evidence – Computer-generated documents – Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 – Application for leave to tender certificate under s. 90A after conclusion of proceedings – Whether certificate constitutes condition precedent to admissibility – Whether non-compliance may be cured retrospectively – Requirement of exceptional circumstances – Whether late tendering would cure substantive evidential defect and prejudice opposing party – Application refused. Evidence – Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 – Certificate for computer-generated documents – Nature of requirement – Admissibility and reliability of evidence – Whether requirement is mere procedural technicality or substantive statutory condition – Principles governing late tendering of certificate. Practice and Procedure – Finality of litigation – Inordinate delay – Need for certainty in legal proceedings – Whether respondent entitled to assume finality where appeal not filed within prescribed period – Balance between access to justice and procedural discipline
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 4 Jun 2026
Source ID: 83dddce9-cd70-421e-a1ce-a6ff3d149117

Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Application under O. 3 r. 5 Rules of Court 2012 – Delay of approximately 100 days – Whether delay inordinate – Whether explanation based on advice of previous counsel sufficient – Requirement to account for entire period of delay – Consideration of length of delay, reasons for delay, merits of intended appeal, prejudice and finality of litigation – Whether Court should exercise discretion to extend time – Application dismissed. Civil Procedure – Appeal – Extension of time – Merits of intended appeal – Alleged absence of admission of debt – Alleged insufficiency of reliance on statutory charges – Issues relating to liability, quantum and procedural compliance – Whether intended appeal disclosed sufficiently compelling or exceptional merits – Whether mere disagreement with trial court’s findings sufficient to justify extension of time – Application dismissed. Civil Procedure – Discretion of Court – Extension of time – Mistake or advice of counsel – Whether conduct of previous counsel automatically entitles litigant to extension – Necessity for satisfactory explanation supported by particulars – Whether explanation accounted for continued period of inactivity – Requirement of diligence by litigant. Evidence – Documentary evidence – Computer-generated documents – Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 – Application for leave to tender certificate under s. 90A after conclusion of proceedings – Whether certificate constitutes condition precedent to admissibility – Whether non-compliance may be cured retrospectively – Requirement of exceptional circumstances – Whether late tendering would cure substantive evidential defect and prejudice opposing party – Application refused. Evidence – Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 – Certificate for computer-generated documents – Nature of requirement – Admissibility and reliability of evidence – Whether requirement is mere procedural technicality or substantive statutory condition – Principles governing late tendering of certificate. Practice and Procedure – Finality of litigation – Inordinate delay – Need for certainty in legal proceedings – Whether respondent entitled to assume finality where appeal not filed within prescribed period – Balance between access to justice and procedural discipline

Parties

SERI GEMBIRA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION - applicant - ejudgment_parties
1. ) ROGHINI A/P SINADURAI - respondent - ejudgment_parties
2. ) KASTHURI A/P SINADURAI - respondent - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Seri Gembira Management Corporation v Roghini A/P Sinadurai (WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

And

WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025

Kand. 19

A. Introduction

B. Background Facts

C. Issues For Determination

Notice of Appeal; and

F.

ISSUE 2: Section 90A Application

G. Decision

Devika Balakrishnan

Messrs. Devika Law

Chambers (Jenjarom)

Advocates & Solicitors

Something wrong on this page?

Seri Gembira Management Corporation v Roghini A/P Sinadurai (WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

And

WA-24NCvC-5853-11/2025

Kand. 19

A. Introduction

B. Background Facts

C. Issues For Determination

Notice of Appeal; and

F.

ISSUE 2: Section 90A Application

G. Decision

Devika Balakrishnan

Messrs. Devika Law

Chambers (Jenjarom)

Advocates & Solicitors

Something wrong on this page?