It follows that Plaintiff’s reliance on the decided case tendered as authority/precedent is completely misplaced. [10] The burden of proof for discovery application lies on the applicant (in this case, it is the Defendant) to show that the court should exercise its discretion to grant a discovery S/N l8tY3kXoEVymDbksbBA order. It is my considered view that the Defendant has failed to show that the documents sought are relevant and are core documents to the Defendant’s defence. Furthermore, the Defendant is unable to ascertain whether the documents are genuinely in the other party’s possession. It would be unjust and oppressive against the Plaintiff and the non-party (PDRM) if a discovery order in terms of Enclosure 53 is made against them. I refer to the case of Phoenix Biqq Sdn. Bhd. V. Yam Kong Wah & Anor [2023] CLJU 648, where the High Court held as follows: “[34] The discretion to order the discovery of documents under Order 24 rule 7A against the non-parties i.e. UASB, De Amoeba, UAT, PICO and Black Point must be exercised with caution when the documents sought are very general in nature, as not to cause prejudice to those entities for the risk of exposing irrelevant documents and which are not necessary that would prejudice the said non-parties. The Plaintiff cannot throw a wide net with the hope to find some evidence to strengthen its claim against the Defendants. There should be specifications or descriptions with reasonable precision on the type and particulars of documents sought by the Plaintiff”. … [40] I refer to the case of Licvem Shipping & Trading Aos & Anor v. JLM Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] CLJU 264; [2016] 1 LNS 264; [2016] 10 MLJ 247. In this case, the plaintiff sought to discover all invoices and bills in respect of the contract between the Plaintiff’s client’s, AEL and the first defendant and all accounts and bank statements related to payments made under the contract between the first defendant and AEL. The High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application and held as follows: [15] Although I am mindful that this court has a discretionary power to order the discovery of any document at any stage of the proceedings, the documents sought cannot be far too wide and further it has to be relevant and related to S/N l8tY3kXoEVymDbksbBA the factual issues. In the instant case, to seek for the discovery of documents in respect of all bank accounts and all statements of account of the first defendant, in my considered opinion, is far too wide and wholly inappropriate. For this reason alone, the application ought to be dismissed; see Wong Hou Lianq & Anor v. Wong Kie Yik & Ors [2015] CLJU 1075; [2015] 1 LNS 1075; [2015] MLJU 358. [16] IN Wong Hou Lianq it was held that granting such a wide order for discovery without determining the type and nature of the documents, apart from a fishing expedition by the Plaintiffs, is detrimental as even documents which are wholly irrelevant to the said action would be subject to the open ended order for discovery which will lead to further delay and expenses on the disposal of the said action.” [11] The Learned JC further held: “[43] Therefore, it is my considered view that allowing the discovery of the documents listed in Schedule A and B will be prejudicial to the Defendants and the non-parties, as apart from being too wide and general, the Plaintiff had also failed to show that the documents sought are in the possession, custody and power of the non-parties. Further, the Defendants have vehemently denied the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendants are the controlling mind and have control over the day-to-day business of UASB, De Amoeba and UAT. More so, the Plaintiff’s basis for the discovery of the said documents is premised on mere suspicion and inferences made from pieces of information obtained from third parties and which are not supported with sufficient evidence. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate that the documents are necessary to fairly dispose of this suit and for saving costs. Based on the circumstances of this case, I agree and accept the submission by the Defendants and the non-parties that the application in enclosure 30 would be oppressive to the Defendants and the non-parties and is an abuse of the process in the Plaintiff’s attempt to S/N l8tY3kXoEVymDbksbBA fish for evidence to strengthen the Plaintiff’s claim. I find through this application, the Plaintiff is trying to find answers to their riddles which they are unsure about. It is trite that fishing expeditions of such nature cannot be allowed by the Court and especially so when it involves entities that are not a party in this action.” (Emphasis added) [12] Even assuming for a moment that the documents sought are relevant as contended by the Defendant, the Defendant has failed to satisfy the requirement that the disclosure of the said documents be necessary to fairly dispose of this suit and for saving costs, as provided by Order 24 rule 8 of ROC 2012. In Lim Hui Jin lwn. Inspektor Muhammad Noorarif Shah & Yang Lain [2022] CLJU 845, Abdul Wahab Mohamed J held: “Mahkamah boleh menolak permohonan penzahiran jika Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa permohonan tersebut tidak diperlukan sama ada untuk menyelesaikan secara adil atau menjimatkan kos dengan membuat rujukan kepada Aturan 24 Kaedah 8 KKM 2012. Selain daripada itu, di dalam membuat keputusan keperluan penzahiran sesuatu dokumen, Mahkamah perlu melihat pada aspek keperluan (necessity) penzahiran dokumen tersebut dilakukan. Dalam kes Abx Logistics (Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Overseas Bechtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2003] 7 CLJ 357 telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “In light of the fact that the defendant had not to date tendered any credible, cogent or even plausible evidence to support their allegations of the plaintiff overcharging, this court is inclined to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant had embarked on a fishing expedition with the view to formulate their counterclaim. The law on discovery is well settled; that in the absence of proper basis for an order for discovery, disclosure should not be allowed.” S/N l8tY3kXoEVymDbksbBA (Emphasis added) [13] The Defendant reliance on Order 92 rule 4 is also misguided. I refer to the case of Sim Cheng Ho v. Lee Yen Pin [2023] CLJU 1619, where the learned JC held as follows: “[15] At this juncture, I would like to make a preliminary observation as to the provision relied on by the Appellant in making this application. The Appellant is misconceived by relying on Order 92 Rule 4, ROC 2012, and or inherent powers of the Court apart from Order 24 ROC 2012 in making this application. [16] I am of the considered view that when there are specific provisions available, the application ought to be made pursuant to the specific provision and one ought not to rely on the inherent powers of the Court pursuant to Order 92 Rule 4 ROC