Tan Sau Ying & 43 Others v Pioneer Haven Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-625-09/2021)

20.NG WEN FEI21.CHANG WAI SING22.KO WENG FATT23.YONG SAW CHAN24.TAN KIM LAI25.HOH HOOI CHOO26.WONG CHEN HONG27.LIM SIEW LEE28.GOH YAN SIN29.LEE BOON YAW30.HONG YOKE BIN31.YONG CHOON YAN32.PUAH BOH SENG33.LIM SUAT LU34.LEE GAIK SUAN35.IEE CHU FONG36.VONG WOON LION37.WONG LI-YEEN38.TAN YUK KYUN39.TEOH KAH HAN40.FONG LAI LIAN41.WONG KOON SANG42.LEE SEOW KENG43.PATRICIA ONG BOON EE44.AARON CHOW KI LIPP... PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF PIONEER HAVEN SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 879237-A)) DEFENDAN GROUND OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 168 - the Plaintiff's Application for Judgment to be Entered under Order 42 rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Enclosure 181 - Defendant's Application to Vary the Court's Order dated 13 March 2026) INTRODUCTION [1] There were two applications before me, Enclosure 168 was the Plaintiff's application for judgment to be entered under Order 42 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012. The other application was the Defendant's application under Enclosure 181 to vary this Court Order of 13 March 2026 (Enclosure 158). On 19 May 2026, I allowed Enclosure 168 with cost at RM7,000.00 subject to fee allocator and Enclosure 181 was dismissed with order as to no cost. BACKGROUND FACTS [2] The Plaintiffs are the forty-four (44) purchasers of a condominium known as The Park City Residence, and had signed a sale and purchase agreements ("the SPAs) with the Defendant subject to the terms and conditions contained in their respective SPAs (Enclosure 104, Enclosure 139 and Enclosure 147). [3] The Defendant is the Developer for a condominium development project known as "The Park City Residence, Phase 2 (Bukit Jalil City)" referred to as "the Project") on a freehold property held under HS(D) 119870, PT No. 15293 ("Master Title") Mukim Petaling, Daerah Kuala Lumpur ("the Land"). [4] The SPAs entered into are contracts of sale governed under the Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ("HDR"). [5] Following the SPAs, the terms among others are that the Developer shall deliver vacant possession to the Purchasers upon (including but not limited to):

(a) the issuance of a certificate of completion and compliance;

(b) the issuance of the separate strata title relating to the said Parcel by the Appropriate Authority; and

(c) water and electricity supply being ready for connection to the said Parcel. [6] By a letter dated 03.12.2019, the vacant possession letter ("the VP Notice"), the Developer informed the Purchasers that vacant possession was ready to be delivered to the Purchasers. However, the strata title for the Property has yet to be issued by the Appropriate Authority. [7] By virtue of Clause 28(1) of Schedule H, the Developer applied to Jabatan Perumahan Negara ("the JPN") for an exemption from compliance with the requirement to deliver vacant possession together with the issuance of the strata title. [8] For ease of reference, Clause 28(1) of Schedule H reads as follows: "Notwithstanding paragraph 27(1)(b), if the separate strata title to the said Parcel is not issued for any reason not attributable to the Developer, then the Developer may apply to the Controller for a certification in writing to deliver the vacant possession of the said Parcel within time stipulated for the handing over of vacant possession under subclause 25(1) and in manner stipulated in clause 27(1)". [9] By a letter dated 03.12.2019 ("the JPN Letter"), the JPN had granted the Developer's application to deliver vacant possession to the Purchasers without the strata title for a period of 13 months from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance ("CCC"), subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) the VP Notices given to the Purchasers have to enclose a copy of the JPN Letter;

(b) the Developer is required to complete the process for the issuance of the strata title and have it ready to be registered in favor of the purchaser within the stipulated period. No extension of the exemption period shall be considered by the Housing Controller after the expiry of this approval;

(c) the Developer shall be required to comply with Clause 28(2), Clause 28(3) and Clause 28(4) of Schedule H;

(d) the Developer shall be required to notify the Purchasers at every stage of the application for the strata title until its issuance and strata title is ready to be delivered to the Purchasers; and

(e) if the Developer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions above, the JPN Letter shall be rendered null and void and the Developer shall be liable to pay liquidated damages (LAD) to the Purchasers. [10] By a letter dated 04.12.2020, the Developer had informed the Purchasers that the strata title to the Property has been issued. [11] The Plaintiffs claimed that the SPAs entered between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not adhere to the period of thirty-six (36) months as provided under the HDR. [12] It is the Plaintiffs' position that the JPN Letter is null and void as the Defendant had failed to comply with the following terms and conditions of the JPN Letter (including but not limited to):

(a) the Defendant failed to notify the Purchasers at every stage of the application for the strata title until its issuance; and

(b) upon issuance of the strata title, the Defendant failed to cause the Proprietor to execute a valid and registrable instrument of transfer of the said Parcel/units and deliver the same to the Purchasers. [13] On 10.04.2025, the Developer filed an application to amend its Defence dated 12.11.2021 to include additional facts, particularly, on the stages of the application for the strata title until its issuance. [14] For ease of reference, the relevant new paragraphs pleaded in the Amended Defence are reproduced below: "8.12 Selanjutnya, melalui satu surat bertarikh 21/3/2019 Defendan telah membuat permohonan bagi Cadangan Pelan Strata dengan JUPEM WP.

13 Defendan kemudiannya telah melalui satu surat bertarikh 21.11.2019 membuat permohonan Cadangan Pelan Strata dengan Jabatan Perumahan Negara, KPKT, Putrajaya.

14 Defendan seterusnya telah melalui satu surat bertarikh 20.2.2020 telah memohon kepada PTGWP bagi pengeluaran hakmilik strata.

15 Pengarah Ukur dan Pemetaan WP telah mengesahkan melalui satu Sijil Cadangan Pelan Strata yang bertarikh 26.2.2020 bahawa permohonan Defendan bagi Cadangan Pelan Strata adalah teratur.

16 PTGWP kemudiannya telah melalui satu surat bertarikh 20.5.2020 meluluskan permohonan strata Defendan di mana badan perbadanan ditubuh dan dikenali sebagai Pembangunan Perdagangan Berstrata Bandar Bukit Jalil (Parcel E.)". [15] On 09.09.2025, this Court allowed the Developer's application to amend its Defence (Enclosure 127). [16] It is the Plaintiffs pleaded case that the JPN Letter is null and void as the Defendant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the JPN Letter where, including but not limited to the following (Enclosure 104, at paragraph 45):

(a) the Developer had failed to notify the Purchasers at every stage of the application for the strata title until its issuance; and

(b) upon issuance of the strata title, the Developer had failed to cause the Proprietor to execute a valid and registrable instrument of transfer of the said Parcel and deliver the same to the Purchasers. [17] On 17.09.2025, the Plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to the Defendant's solicitors for the Defendant to answer the Plaintiffs' proposed interrogatories in respect of the new pleaded facts in its Amended Defence (Enclosure 127). [18] The proposed interrogatories are as follows: In respect of paragraph 8.12 of the Amended Defence;

(i) Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiffs that the Defendant had made an application for a Proposed Strata Plan with JUPEM WP via letter dated 21.03.2019? In respect of paragraph 8.13 of the Amended Defence;

(v) Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiffs that the PTGWP had vide the letter dated 20.5.2020 approved the Defendant's strata application whereby the body corporate ("badan perbadanan") was formed and known as the Pembangunan Perdagangan Berstrata Bandar Bukit Jalil (Parcel E)? [19] The Defendant vide its Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 138) affirmed that they had answered the interrogatories by way of its Solicitors' letter dated 15.10.2025 which stated: "In reply to your questions from (i) to (v) in Annexure A, our Client have instructed us that these questions are not relevant in this Suit." [20] The Plaintiffs' pleaded case is that as the Defendant had failed and/or refused to adhere to the terms and conditions as stated in the JPN's letter (Enclosure 104, at paragraph 47), the JPN's exemption becomes null and void. On this basis, the Defendant is to deliver deliver vacant possession together with the Strata Title within thirty-six (36) months from the date of the payment deposited (Enclosure 104, paragraph 48). [21] It is the Plaintiffs pleaded case that the Defendant delayed in delivering vacant possession of the Property to the Plaintiffs within the stipulated period and the Plaintiffs claimed that the delay was from the last date of the vacant possession until 09.12.2020 based on the letter of 4.12.2020 that would have been received by the Plaintiffs by 09.12.2020 (Enclosure 104, paragraph 53). [22] The Plaintiffs applied vide Enclosure 129 to serve interrogatories to the Defendant which was allowed by this Court on 13.3.2026. This Court directed that the interrogatories are narrowed down to paragraphs 3,4 and 5 and ordered that the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer Mr. Choo Yung Yau, which was also on the Defendant's counsel's suggestion, to answer the interrogatories ("the Interrogatory Order"). [23] On 03.4.2026, the deponent whom answered the Interrogatory Order was one Mr. Lee Teok Hwa and not Mr. Choo Yung Yau. [24] On 09.4.2026, the Plaintiffs applied vide Enclosure 168 for the judgment to be entered against the Defendant pursuant to Order 26 Rule 7 of the ROC 2012. [25] On 13.4.2026, the Defendant filed an application to vary the Interrogatories Order under Enclosure 181pursuant to Order 42 Rule 13 of the ROC 2012. [26] At the hearing of the two applications on 19 May 2026, the Defendant had also sought for an oral amendment to its application Enclosure 181 as it had referred to the wrong rules of the ROC 2012, that it be amended from Order 42 Rules 13 to Order 26 Rule 9 of the ROC 2012 which I allowed with cost at RM2,000.00. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT [27] The main crux of the matter in relation to the two applications are whether the interrogatories posed by the Plaintiffs had been answered by the Defendant which led to Enclosure 168 be allowed and Enclosure 181 be dismissed. A brief background leading to the two applications, firstly on Enclosure 168. [28] Enclosure 168 was the Plaintiffs' application to enter judgment against the Defendant's breach of the Interrogatory Order. For easy reference, Enclosure 168 is reproduced here as follows: "(a) Penghakiman dimasukkan yang memihak kepada Plaintif-Plaintif dengan membenarkan tindakan asal Plaintif-Plaintif yang difailkan menurut Writ Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda kedua-duanya bertarikh 18.2.2025 ("Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan")[Lampiran 103 & 104];

(b) Suatu perintah interim bahawa semua prosiding selanjutnya ke atas Writ Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda dan/atau prosiding terhadap Defendan digantung dengan serta merta sehingga pelupusan penuh dan muktamad permohonan ini;

(c) Kos; dan

(d) Bahawa perintah atau arahan berbangkit diberi atau dibuat sebagaimana Mahkamah yang Mulia ini anggap adil atau suai manfaat. [29] Alasan-alasan ringkas untuk menyokong permohonan ini adalah seperti berikut:

(a) Pada 13.3.2026, Mahkamah telah memberikan satu Perintah yang antara lain memerintahkan Defendan untuk memfailkan dan menyampaikan Jawapan kepada Interogatori Plaintif-Plaintif pada atau sebelum 3 April 2026 ("Perintah Interogatori")[Lampiran 158];

(b) Tetapi, Defendan telah gagal, enggan dan/atau abai untuk memenuhi Perintah Interogatori;

(c) Defendan telah secara konsisten gagal mematuhi dan/atau telah melanggar Perintah Interogatori;

(d) Ketidakpatuhan yang konsisten terhadap Perintah Interogatori oleh Defendan telah menyebabkan Plaintif-Plaintif mengalami prejudis yang ketara; dan

(e) Alasan-alasan lanjut adalah sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif-Plaintif oleh Lee Gaik Suan yang telah diikrarkan pada 09.4.2026 dan telah difailkan di sini dan akan dibaca sebagai sokongan kepada permohonan ini.” [30] The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendant claimed there was an extension of time granted by the Controller of Housing/JPN for the completion period to be fifty-four (54) months instead of thirty-six (36) months. It is the Plaintiffs' counsel's contention that the extension of time is null and void following the Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee and Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan [2020] 1 CLJ 162 which held that Housing Controller's powers to change the completion period under the HDR is ultra vires. [31] It is undisputed that a copy of the said extension of time claimed by the Defendant was not given to the Plaintiffs at the time the SPAs were signed. The Plaintiffs also submitted that the extension of time notice was not given to the Plaintiffs at the time the vacant possession was delivered to the Plaintiffs. It was also submitted that the extension of time was disclosed by the Defendant for the first time after this suit was filed in Court thus the Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the extension of time and assumed that the SPAs signed were in the prescribed form of Schedule H of the HDR (Enclosure 18, paragraphs 3.16 and 3.17). [32] The Defendant's counsel on the other hand submitted that the Defendant had pleaded that vide one Certificate dated 26.08.2015 had modified clause 25(1) and clause 29(1) from thirty-six (36) months to fifty-four (54) months (Enclosure 127, paragraph 5.1). It was submitted that upon signing the SPAs, it was within the Plaintiffs' knowledge that clauses 25(1) and 29(1) had been modified (Enclosure 127, paragraph 5.3). [33] The reasons submitted for the Interrogatory Order in particular for paragraphs 3,4 & 5 are the events as pleaded by the Defendant in its Amended Defence following the JPN letter issued to the Defendant dated 3.12.2015. The Plaintiffs' position is, the Plaintiffs were not informed by the Defendant and the Defendant could not be certain that they did inform the Plaintiffs as directed by the JPN (JPN's letter dated 3.12.2019, at paragraphs 4 & 5, Enclosure 137). [34] The Plaintiffs' counsel also submitted that the Developer neither admits nor denies the Plaintiffs' allegation in the Statement of Claim that the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiffs about the stages of the application for the strata title until its issuance (Enclosure 104) as directed by the JPN (Enclosure 169, page 53). [35] Based on the Amended Defence, the Defendant had spelled out the stages of what the Defendant had done towards getting the strata title but nowhere mentioned as to when the Defendant informed the Plaintiffs at every stage of the application for the strata title until its issuance. [36] It is the Plaintiffs pleaded case that they were not informed on the granting of the extension of time prior to signing of the SPAs unlike in the case of Alpine Return Sdn Bhd v Matthew Ng Hock Sing & Ors [2022] 1 CLJ 120 where both the purchasers and the Developer were equally cognisant that the delivery of vacant possession of the parcel is within 60 months and the purchasers did not object to the extension. [37] Thus the very reason for the Plaintiffs' application under Enclosure 129 for interrogatory. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs informed this Court that an earlier directive was for the Plaintiffs to apply for interrogatory, which was not objected to by the Defendant's counsel. [38] The related paragraphs of the JPN's letter dated 03.12.2019 is reproduced here as follows: "2. Setelah menyemak dan meneliti permohonan penyerahan pemilikan kosong bagi hakmilik strata belum dikeluarkan dan pemindahan hakmilik, perincian bagi pemajuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: BILPERKARATARIKH1.Tarikh Lesen Pemaju Perumahan & Permit Iklan dan Jualan(APDL)23.7.20152.Tarikh Perjanjian Jual Beli Pertama ditandatangani10.9.20153.Tarikh Penyerahan Pemilikan Kosong(VP)sepatutnya9.3.20204.Tarikh Perakuan Siap dan Pematuhan8.11.20195.Tarikh Hakmilik Strata dijangka diserahkan kepada pembeli7.12.2020

Merujuk kepada Klausa 28(1) Perjanjian Jual Beli (Jadual H), Timbalan Pengawal Perumahan meluluskan permohonan pengecualian penyerahan pemilikan kosong tanpa hakmilik strata dan pemindahan hakmilik (Lampiran A dirujuk) UNTUK TEMPOH TIGA BELAS (13) BULAN DARI TARIKH PENGELUARAN SIJIL PERAKUAN SIAP DAN PEMATUHAN (CCC).

Pemaju perlu memaklumkan kelulusan ini kepada pembeli berdasarkan terma berikut:

(a) Notis penyerahan pemilikan kosong petak tersebut kepada pembeli hendaklah disertakan dengan sesalinan perakuan bertulis ini yang dikeluarkan oleh Pengawal Perumahan;

(b) Pemaju perlu menyelesaikan perihal pengeluaran hakmilik strata untuk sedia didaftarkan kepada pembeli di dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. Tiada perlanjutan tempoh masa pengecualian akan dipertimbangkan oleh Pengawal Perumahan selepas tamat kelulusan ini;

(c) Pematuhan kepada Klausa 28(2), Klausa 28(3) dan Klausa 28(4) Jadual H, Peraturan-peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989; dan

(d) Memaklumkan kepada pembeli setiap peringkat permohonan hakmilik strata sehingga ianya dikeluarkan dan bersedia untuk diserahkan kepada pembeli. ... " [39] Enclosure 129 was allowed with order as to no cost and the interrogatory was narrowed down to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 which are reproduced here for easy reference, as follows: "3. Adakah Defendan memaklumkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa Defendan telah memohon kepada PTGWP untuk pengeluaran hakmilik strata melalui surat bertarikh 20.02.2020? Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiffs that the Defendant had applied to PTGWP for the issuance of strata title via letter dated 20.2.2020?

Adakah Defendan memaklumkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa Pengarah Ukur dan Pemetaan telah memperakukan bahawa permohonan Defendan bagi Cadangan Pelan Strata adalah teratur melalui "Sijil Cadangan Pelan Strata" bertarikh 26.2.2020? Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiffs that the Pengarah Ukur dan Pemetaan WP had certified that the Defendant's application for the Proposed Strata Plan was in order vide the "Sijil Cadangan Pelan Strata" dated 26.2.2020?

Adakah Defendan memaklumkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa PTGWP melalui surat bertarikh 20.5.2020 telah meluluskan permohonan strata Defendan di mana badan perbadanan telah ditubuhkan dan dikenali sebagai Pembangunan Perdagangan Berstrata Bandar Bukit Jalil (Parcel E)? Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiffs that the PTGWP had vide letter dated 20.5.2020 approved the Defendant's strata application whereby the body corporate ("badan perbadanan") was formed and known as the Pembangunan Perdagangan Berstrata Bandar Bukit Jalil (Parcel E)? [40] As the JPN's letter expressly directed that the Defendant must notify the Plaintiffs at every stage of the application for the Strata Title until its issuance, whether such notification had been fulfilled by the Defendant is one of the questions sought by the Plaintiffs to which had not been denied by the Defendant in its Amended Defence. [41] It was the JPN's directive for the Defendant to resolve the Strata Title issuance at paragraph 4(b) of the JPN's letter as no extension of time was allowed after the lapse of the JPN's approval. The JPN's directive following Schedule H is as reflected in clause 28 of the SPAs whereby at clause 28(4) the Defendant would be liable to pay to the Plaintiffs the liquidated damages calculated at the same rate as for delay in rendering vacant possession of the units to the Plaintiffs. [42] I viewed that the interrogatory is related to the central issue of whether there was a delay on the part of the Defendant to deliver vacant possession and/or non-compliance of the JPN's directive as per Schedule H of the HDR that would trigger clause 28(4) of the SPAs. [43] I find that the interrogatories are relevant where those facts are would be supportive of establishing a fact in issue where such interrogatory could also rebut or negate a fact in issue: Industrial property Management Sdn Bhd v Forebase Property Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 9 MLJ 57, COA. [44] The extension of time was applied by the Defendant to the JPN based on the JPN's letter dated 26.8.2015 (Enclosure 215, page 57) prior the signing of the SPAs between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. [45] Therefore, my finding was that the interrogatory is necessary under Order 26 Rule 1 paragraph 2 of the ROC 2012 which also allows for the fair and speedy disposal and the reduction of costs in the trial: Hall v Sevalco Ltd [1996] PIQR 344. [46] At the hearing of the application under Enclosure 168, the Plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Defendant did not answer the Interrogatory Order. The answer required was whether it was a 'yes' or a 'no' reply, however, the reply given was that the Defendant need not inform the Plaintiffs. [47] Conversely, the learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 of the Interrogatory Order are evidentiary and need not be replied. It was also submitted the Defendant's objection to the application in Plaintiffs favour (Enclosure 184, paragraph 4.1) on the argument that clause 28(4) of the SPA is triggered if there is a breach of clause 28(3) of the SPAs (Enclosure 184, paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3). [48] As affirmed by the Plaintiffs in its affidavit in reply (Enclosure 169), the reply provided by the Defendant under Enclosure 159 is by Lee Teok Hwa, a project director in the Property Development Department of the Defendant. For instance, paragraph 3 of the Interrogatory Order questioned as to whether the Defendant had informed the Plaintiffs of their application to PTGWP on the issuance of the strata title vide letter dated 20.2.2020, and the reply was as follows: "Defendan tidak perlu memaklumkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif berkenaan dengan surat bertarikh 20/2/2020. Surat tersebut merupakan persuratan susulan berkenaan dengan proses pengeluaran hakmilik strata diantara juruukur Defendan dan PTGWP. Defendan telah memulakan proses pengeluaran hakmilik strata dengan permolehan Sijil SIFUS yang bertarikh 25/8/2015 dari PTGWP. Surat bertarikh 20/2/2020 tersebut tidak melibatkan sebarang peringkat baru bagi permohonan pengeluaran hakmilik strata dengan PTGWP." [49] In relation to paragraph 4, the reply was "Pihak Defendan tidak perlu memaklumkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif mengenai "Sijil Cadangan Pelan Strata" yang bertarikh 26.2.2020. Sijil tersebut dikeluarkan oleh pihak JUPEM setelah Defendan membuat permohonan selaras dengan Permohonan Bagi Sijil Cadangan Pelan Strata (Borang 10) bertarikh 25.3.2019 yang dilampirkan Bersama-sama dengan dokumen sokongan dan diserahkan kepada JUPEM pada 27.3.2019. Sijil bertarikh 26.2.2020 ini tidak melibatkan sebarang peringkat baru bagi permohonan pengeluaran hakmilik strata yang melibatkan pihak JUPEM." [50] It was then disclosed to this Court that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who was named by the Defendant to be the person in charge and to provide the reply to the Interrogatory Order as confirmed by the Defendant's counsel at the hearing before me, had retired from his position as the CEO of the Defendant on 05.9.2025 based on a letter dated 22.7.2025 (Enclosure 183, paragraph 6.3, Enclosure 184, paragraph 8.1 and exhibit D1, page 16). [51] Following this and that the Defendant's counsels could not even explained to this Court, I find that the Interrogatory Order had been breached. My finding based on the facts and evidence before me is that, the Defendant not only did not reply to the Interrogatory Order, the reply provided was not from the person in charge that is the CEO of the Defendant as ordered by this Court. [52] I viewed that the failure to comply to the Interrogatory Order by the Defendant cannot be remedied under Order 92 Rule 4 of the ROC 2012. [53] Therefore, this Court allowed Enclosure 168 that is for the judgment to be entered accordingly pursuant to Order 26 Rule 7(1) of the ROC 2012. Enclosure 181 [54] Enclosure 181 was an application by the Defendant to vary by changing the person who was to reply to the Interrogatory Order to another person. The application is reproduced for easy reference: "1. Defendan diberi kebenaran untuk mengubah (vary) Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 13 Mac 2026 [Lampiran 158] secara khususnya di lampiran 'A' Borang 45 (Interogatori) daripada: "Choo Yung Yau (no. K/P: 650905-10-5267), seorang ketua pengarah eksekutif (CEO) bagi bahagian Pemajuan Hartanah di Syarikat Defendan (atau sebagaimana yang berkenaan), Pioneer haven Sdn Bhd [No Syarikat: 879237-A], dikehendaki untuk menjawab interogatori yang bernombor 3,4 dan 5)" Kepada:- "(Lee Teok Hwa (No. K/P: 710129-05-5253), seorang Pengarah Projek, Jabatan Pembangunan Hartanah di Syarikat Defendan (atau sebagaimana yang berkenaan), Pioneer Haven Sdn Bhd [No. Syarikat: 879237-A], dikehendaki untuk menjawab interogatori yang bernombor 3, 4 dan 5)";

Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; dan

Lain-lain perintah yang dianggap suai, patut dan manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini." [55] The application was supported by the affidavit of Mr. Lee Teok Hwa that the change is in relation to the identity of the deponent for Enclosure 181 (Enclosure 183 at paragraph 4.2). It was affirmed by him that the earlier deponent whom replied to the interrogatory application under Enclosure 129 was one Ng Yoon Thai, the Chief Operations Officer (COO). Ng Yoon Thai had tendered his resignations dated 16.1.2026 by giving three (3) months' notice and his request for an earlier release effected on 03.04.2026 as his last day at work as the COO of the Defendant (Enclosure 183, page 16). [56] In relation to the proposed "vary" application by the Defendant under Enclosure 181, I find that it was a manufactured afterthought on the part of the Defendant. The fact remains that the Choo Yung Yau, the CEO of the Defendant had retired from his position with the Defendant in September 2025 and including his annual leave of thirty (30) days, he was technically working up till 23.7.2025 (Enclosure 183, paragraph 6.3 and Exhibit D1). One of the reasons stated for the Defendant's application under Enclosure 181 is that the CEO of the Defendant had resigned, "Ketua Pengarah Eksekutif Defendan tersebut telahpun meletak jawatan dan beliau tidak lagi bekerja dengan Defendan;" whereas the exhibited letter at Enclosure 183 stated that the CEO of the Defendant had retired. [57] The knowledge about the retired CEO of the Defendant also raised the question as to whom had authorised the reply to the Plaintiffs' Solicitors' interrogatory/questions dated 15.10.2025 (Enclosure 138). The Defendant's conduct shows that the Defendant has no intention to reply to the interrogatories what more to provide admissions of facts designed to reduce the issues to be tried, inevitably to shortened the length of the trial and save costs: Sheikh Abdullah Bin Sheikh Mohamed v Kang Kock Seng [1975] 1 MLJ 89, FC. [58] The Defendant's counsel as the court officer is required to assist this Court to the truth of the matter. This suit was registered in year 2021 and the unbecoming conduct of the Defendant and the Defendant's counsel are not helping this Honourable Court to save time and cost, in particular the taxpayers' money. The Defendant's counsel had since released himself from representing the Defendant in this suit without first notifying this Court. [59] Based on the foregoing reasons, Enclosure 181 is dismissed with order as to no cost. CONCLUSION [60] To conclude, in light of the above reasons, pursuant to Order 26 Rule 7(1) of the ROC 2012 Enclosure 168 was allowed with cost at RM7,000.00, the oral amendment for Enclosure 181 was allowed with cost at RM2,000.00, totaled RM9,000.00 subject to fee allocator and Enclosure 181 was dismissed with no order as to cost. Dated 19th May 2026 (ZALITA BINTI ZAIDAN) (ZALITA BINTI ZAIDAN) (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER) (HIGH COURT CIVIL NCVC3) (HIGH COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR) THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA) Plaintiff's Counsel Wong Renn Xin Messrs Defendant's Counsel : Rajasegaran a/l Karuppiah Kalvinder Singh Bata Arwind (PDK) Messrs KL Wong Cases Referred: Ang Ming Lee and Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan [2020] 1 CLJ 162 Alpine Return Sdn Bhd v Matthew Ng Hock Sing & Ors [2022] 1 CLJ 120 Industrial property Management Sdn Bhd v Forebase Property Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 9 MLJ 57, COA Hall v Sevalco Ltd [1996] PIQR 344 Sheikh Abdullah Bin Sheikh Mohamed v Kang Kock Seng [1975] 1 MLJ 89 FC Act/Law Referred: Order 26 Rule 1, Order 26 Rule 7, Order 26 Rule 9, Order 42 Rule 13, Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 Articles Referred: