XXXX v 1. ) Ahmad Mursyidin Bin Abdullah (TA-B53-1-01/2023)

AHMAD MURSYIDIN BIN ABDULLAH [No Kad Pengenalan: 850816-11-5873]

YAYASAN ISLAM TERENGGANU …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. PENDAHULUAN [1] Pihak Defendan-defendan telah memfailkan notis permohonan [Lampiran 57] untuk memfailkan senarai saksi tambahan Defendan serta memfailkan ikatan dokumen tambahan di bawah Aturan 2 Kaedah 1, Aturan 34 Kaedah 2

dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 iaitu di bawah bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah ini untuk perintah yang berikut: 1) Bahawa Defendan-defendan dibenarkan untuk memfailkan Senarai Saksi Tambahan Defendan; 2) Bahawa Defendan-defendan dibenarkan untuk mengemukakan saksi bernama Wan Hafizuddin bin Wan Syafrinudin (No. Mykid: 130716-11-0017) sebagai saksi Defendan-defendan untuk memberi keterangan bagi pihak Defendan-defendan dalam perbicaraan kes ini; 3) Bahawa Defendan-defendan dibenarkan untuk memfailkan Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan Defendan-defendan; 4) Bahawa kos permohonan adalah di dalam kausa; 5) Apa-apa relief lain yang Mahkamah fikirkan wajar dan suaimanfaat. [2] Bagi permohonan ini, Mahkamah telah meneliti kertas kausa seperti yang berikut: a) Notis Permohonan Defendan-Defendan yang bertarikh 12.3.2025 (Lampiran 57); b) Afidavit Sokongan Defendan-defendan yang diikrarkan oleh Ahmad Mursyidin bin Abdullah pada 12.3.2025 (Lampiran 58); c) Afidavit Bantahan Plaintif yang diikrarkan oleh Nor Azlina Binti Mohamad Yasin pada 3.4.2025 (Lampiran 59); d) Afidavit Balasan Plaintif yang diikrarkan oleh Ahmad Mursyidin bin Abdullah pada 13.4.2025 (Lampiran 61); e) Afidavit Tambahan Defendan yang diikrarkan oleh Peguam cara Defendan Muhamad Fakhrulhakim pada 15.4.2025 (Lampiran 63); [3] Mahkamah pada 11.5.2025 telah menolak permohonan Defendan-defendan di Lampiran 57 ini dengan kos RM 500 diberikan kepada pihak Plaintif. Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan ini, Plaintif telah memfailkan notis rayuan bertarikh 11.5.2025 merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut ke Mahkamah Tinggi. B. LATAR BELAKANG [4] Plaintif memfailkan tindakan menuntut ganti rugi atas kecederaan yang dialaminya. Plaintif mendakwa pada 6.7.2022 semasa Plaintif berada di dalam kelas KAFA, di Sekolah Kebangsaan Tasek, Marang, Terengganu, Defendan Pertama iaitu guru KAFA dikatakan telah memegang, mengangkat atau menggendong kemudiannya menghempas Plaintif ke atas kerusi dalam keadaan kaki Plaintif berlipat. Ini menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami kecederaan pada kaki kanannya. [5] Plaintif juga turut menyaman Defendan Kedua selaku majikan kepada Defendan Pertama. Plaintif menuntut antara lain ganti rugi-ganti rugi am, teruk, teladan, khas, faedah dan kos tindakan serta kos kepeguaman. [6] Pihak Defendan-defendan telah menafikan dakwaan pihak Plaintif. Berdasarkan pembelaan pihak Defendan-defendan, Plaintif dikatakan telah bermain-main pada hari kejadian di bahagian belakang kelas. Plaintif telah terjatuh di lantai dan menangis. [7] Defendan Pertama telah memeriksa Plaintif dan berdasarkan memeriksa fizikal Plaintif, didapati tiada kecederaan fizikal atau luka. Defendan Pertama kemudiannya telah mengangkat Plaintif dan meletakkannya di atas kerusi dan meneruskan pembelajaran. Alasan Permohonan [8] Defendan-defendan memfailkan permohonan di Lampiran 57 ini setelah 6 orang saksi Plaintif selesai memberi keterangan. [9] SP1 iaitu Nur Eryna Delisha Binti Mohd Hishamudin dan SP2 iaitu Muhammad Amzar Bin Mohd Saiful Azlan yang merupakan rakan sekelas Plaintif, ada menyebut tentang penglibatan Wan Hafizuddin bin Wan Syafrinudin dalam kes ini. Namun begitu,penama tersebut hanya boleh dikesan pada 17.2.2025 iaitu setelah perbicaraan bermula. [10] Pihak peguam Defendan telah menemubual penama tersebut dan penama tersebut telah memberikan keterangan yang material untuk kes ini. [11] Penama Wan Hafizuddin ini juga telah membuat laporan polis yang mana laporan polis tersebut masih belum difailkan ke Mahkamah dan pihak peguam Defendan juga masih belum menerima laporan polis yang dibuat oleh penama tersebut. [12] Pihak Plaintif masih lagi belum menutup kesnya dan tiada prejudis terhadap Plaintif atas permohonan ini. Kos boleh diberikan sebagai ganti rugi terhadap apa-apa kerugian yang dialami oleh pihak Plaintif akibat permohonan ini. Bantahan Plaintif [13] Arahan PTCM telah diberikan pada 12.11.2024 di mana Mahkamah telah mengarahkan untuk senarai saksi dan penyata saksi difailkan dalam tempoh seminggu sebelum tarikh bicara ditetapkan. Tarikh bicara telah ditetapkan pada 8.1.2024 dan pihak-pihak telah memfailkan senarai saksi dan penyata saksi masing-masing pada 1.1.2025. Tindakan pihak Defendan-defendan memfailkan permohonan ini merupakan satu tindakan yang mengingkari dan tidak menghormati arahan Mahkamah sebelum ini berkaitan arahan PTCM. [14] Penama Wan Hafizuddin telah memberikan keterangan kepada Pegawai Penyiasat pada 4.9.2022. Besar kemungkinan penama ini merupakan salah seorang saksi pendakwaan bagi kes yang melibatkan Defendan Pertama yang merupakan rentetan daripada peristiwa yang berlaku pada 6.7.2022 tersebut. Tindakan jenayah telah dimulakan terhadap Defendan Pertama di Mahkamah Majistret Marang di mana kes telah ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara pada 10 hingga 12 Jun 2025. [15] Tindakan untuk memanggil penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sebagai tambahan kepada saksi Defendan merupakan satu tindakan untuk mengganggu saksi-saksi pendakwaan di mana Mahkamah Majistret telah mengenakan syarat jaminan untuk Defendan Pertama tidak mengganggu saksi-saksi pendakwaan. [16] Kes jenayah di Mahkamah Majistret Marang telah pun bermula dan SP1 telah pun dipanggil pada 9.3.2023 lagi. Laporan polis yang dibuat oleh SP1 berkenaan peranan penama Wan Hafizuddin telah pun dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan jenayah tersebut. Pihak Defendan sepatutnya telah sedar mengenai kepentingan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sejak dulu lagi tetapi telah mengabaikan untuk memasukkan penama ini dalam senarai saksi pihak Defendan. Defendan sepatutnya telah memasukkan penama Wan Hafizuddin sebagai cadangan saksi yang ingin dipanggil oleh pihak Defendan dalam kes ini walaupun temu bual atau temu duga penama tersebut tidak lagi dibuat semasa senarai saksi difailkan. [17] Perbicaraan telah dimulakan pada 11.2.2025 dengan keterangan SP1 dan SP2. Tiada laporan polis baharu dibuat semasa perbicaraan berlangsung. Ikatan Dokumen bersama telah difailkan pada 9.8.2023 dan laporan polis yang dibuat oleh SP1 dan SP2 telah ada dalam pengetahuan pihak Defendan. [18] Tindakan Defendan memfailkan permohonan ini terutamanya setelah SP1 dan SP2 telah selesai memberi keterangan dan telah pun disoal balas oleh pihak Defendan merupakan satu pemikiran kemudian (afterthought) yang sangat memprejudiskan pihak Plaintif. Tambahan pula, laporan polis yang dikatakan dibuat oleh penama Wan Hafizuddin hanya dibuat selepas SP1 dan SP2 selesai memberi keterangan dan masih tidak dikemukakan dalam permohonan ini. C. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [19] Pihak Plaintif berhujah bahawa Mahkamah tidak memberikan “unless order” semasa memberikan arahan PTCM. Pihak Defendan-defendan juga telah mematuhi arahan PTCM yang telah diberikan oleh pihak Mahkamah sebelum ini. [20] Mahkamah masih mempunyai kuasa budi bicara dan boleh memberikan apa-apa perintah yang menurut Mahkamah adalah adil dan bersesuaian dengan kes ini. [21] Ini selaras dengan peruntukan yang dinyatakan dalam Aturan 34 Kaedah (1)(3) dan Aturan 34 Kaedah (2) (3) dan (4) KKM 2012 memberikan Mahkamah kuasa untuk membuat apa-apa perintah yang difikirkan adil dan juga kuasa untuk mengetepikan sebarang perintah yang dibuat lanjutan kepada ketidakpatuhan arahan PTCM oleh mana-mana pihak. Order 34. Pre-trial case management Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34, r. 1)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that—

all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and

such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof. ...

Where any party fails to comply with any order made or direction given by the Court under paragraph (1), the Court may dismiss the action, strike out the defence or counterclaim or make such other order as it thinks fit. Pre-trial case management when directed by the Court (O. 34, r. 2)

The Court, having given directions under rule 2(2) or rule 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit.

Any judgment or order made under rule 2(3) may be set aside by the Court, on the application of the party, on such terms, if any, as it thinks just. [22] Kepentingan keadilan merupakan satu keutamaan di mana sebarang ketidakpatuhan yang bukan ‘fatal' hendaklah diterima sebagai satu ketidakpatuhan kecil yang tidak membatalkan prosiding. Ini selaras dengan peruntukan di Aturan 1A KKM 2012 dan Aturan 2 Kaedah 1 (1) KKM 2012

Court or judge shall have regard to justice Regard shall be to justice (O. 1A) In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules. Order 2. Effect of non-compliance Non-compliance with Rules (O. 2, r. 1)

(1) Where, in beginning or purporting to begin any proceedings or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings, there has, by reason of any thing done or left undone, been non-compliance with the requirement of these Rules, the non-compliance shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings, or any document, judgment or order therein. [23] Pihak Defendan-defendan telah merujuk kepada kes Tong Kim Soo v. Tirai Prospektif Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 353 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan menegaskan ketidakpatuhan prosedur yang tidak memprejudiskan semata-mata tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk membatalkan satu-satu kes. Sebaliknya keutamaan hendaklah diberikan kepada membicarakan kes atas meritnya. Mahkamah menegaskan :- [16] We noted that the grounds of judgment of the learned JC only took into account the length of delay and the reason for delay. Although it is nothing wrong to refuse the extension of time based on the given·reasons of non-compliance found by the learned JC, however, we believed that due diligence must also be observed to hear merit of the case in order to attain substantial justice. [17] This court in Redang Paradise Vacation Sdn Bhd v. Yap Chuan Bin & Other Appeals {2017110 CLJ 296; [2017] 5 MLJ 35 which was decided in 2017 being the latest case held that the ROC 2012 was introduced to ensure cases now have to be heard on merits and cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of rules unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. The court says as follows: [3] It is now well established that common sense jurisprudence has been a tool for the so called 'reasonable man' in his decision making process. This jurisprudence has been captured in a number of English decisions as well as the decision of our apex court in a number of cases in relation to decision making process by the courts. In the case of Alami Vegetable Oil Products Sdn Bhd v. Hafeez Iqbal Oil & Ghee Industries (Pvt) Ltd [201617 CLJ 19, the Court of Appeal had this to say: ... Lord Denning had often reminded us that judicial decision must not be confined to law but also common sense which we these days called as purposive approach and is partly codified. (See s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967). At times, without the application of common sense, a just result cannot be achieved. Common sense approach has been adopted in a number of Malaysian judgments. (See (a) Keng Soon Finance Bhd v. MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor (198911 CLJ 897; [19891 1 CLJ (Rep) 1; [1989] 1 MLJ 457; (b) Comandate Marine Corp v. Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192). [4] The ROC 2012, to ensure the merits of the case or appeal is heard to attain substantive justice, have introduced a number of provisions to fortify the principles. Cases now have to be heard on merits and cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of rules unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. For example, 0. 1A of the ROC 2012 asserts: ORDER 1A Regard shall be to justice (0. 1A) In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules. And 0. 2 asserts: ORDER 2 1 Non-compliance with Rules (0. 2 r. 1 )

Where, in beginning or purporting to begin any proceedings or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings, there has, by reason of anything done or left undone, been non-compliance with the requirement of these Rules, the non-compliance shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings, or any document, judgment or order therein.

These Rules are a procedural code and subject to the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. The parties are required to assist the court to achieve this overriding objective.

The court or Judge may, on the ground that there has been such non-compliance as referred .to in paragraph (1), and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it or he thinks just, bearing in mind the overriding objective of these Rules, exercise its or his discretion under these Rules to allow such amendments, if any, to be made and to make such order, if any, dealing with the proceedings generally as it or he thinks fit in order to cure the irregularity. [5] In the fifth edition of Janab's Key to Civil Procedure at p. 3 on non-compliance, the author had this to say: The previous Order 1A and Order 2 of the RHC 1980 have been further fortified to ensure that cases are heard on merits. The court before striking out, must consider the overriding interest of justice and not only the technical non-compliance of the rules. This overriding interest of justice concept is sufficiently wide enough to encompass the position and jurisprudence relating to non-compliance in the UK. [6] In the light of 0.1A and 0.2 of the ROC 2012, it is not an option anymore for the courts to strike out a matter for non-compliance of the rules without giving an opportunity to the litigant to regularise the proceedings or to condone the irregularity by the fiat of the court. It is only in extremely rare cases where the non-compliance cannot be condoned at all, the court will be obliged to strike out the matter. Those are the cases where the respondent can demonstrate prejudice as well as can establish that the breach cannot be compensated by costs. (See also Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd v. Swee Joo Berhad & Ors And Another Appeal [201711 LNS 2086; [2017] MLJU 2095) [18] Following the above principle, we found, there is nothing mentioned in the grounds of judgment that the learned JC had considered the merit of the case or the chances of the appeal succeeding and the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application was granted. [24] Defendan-defendan juga telah merujuk kes Dr Sim Kui Hian v. Chong Chieng Jen & Other Appeals [2021] 6 CLJ 305 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan rayuan terhadap perintah membatalkan saman di bawah Aturan 34(2)(3) dan menegaskan bahawa perintah pembatalan tersebut tidak wajar dibuat mengambil kira ketidakpatuhan arahan PTCM dalam kes berkenaan tidak mengganggu perjalanan perbicaraan kes tersebut. Mahkamah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: [33] We are also of the view that there was no material for the learned Judicial Commiss_ioner to conclude that the plaintiff had gained "unfair material advantage over the defendant". Admittedly, plaintiff delayed in filing the bundle of documents by one month. However, the suit concerns a defamation action. The relevant documents are already in the public domain. In any event, the plaintiffs bundle of documents comprised largely of the defendant's documents. In the premises, the finding that "the plaintiff got to see the defendant's card while holding his own cards to his chest, figuratively speaking", is not tenable. [34] We also note that there was no prior warning that the court would dismiss the claim of the plaintiff if the bundle of documents were not filed within the stipulated time. There was no unless or peremptory order issued by the court prior to the date of the dismissal of the action. We are mindful that the requirement for a prior peremptory order or unless order is not stated in 0. 34 r.2(3). Be that as it may, we are of the view that unless the nature of the non-compliance is sufficiently serious to defeat the purpose of the case management directions, the drastic action of dismissing the action without warning should not be resorted to. The purpose of pre-trial case management directions is to "secure the just, expeditious and economic disposal of the action or proceedings"(see 0. 34 r.2(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 ). In the instant case, by all accounts including that of counsel for the defendant as we noted earlier, the trial schedule was not disrupted despite the delay in the filing of the bundle of documents by the plaintiff. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit merely because the explanation for the delay was unbelievable cannot be reconciled with the main purpose of the case management regime provided in 0. 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 that we adverted to earlier. [35] For avoidance of doubt, we hasten to add that we are in no way condoning the delay in complying with the court's case management directions on the part of Mr Shankar Ram. However, given the fact that the non-compliance in question cannot be construed as amounting to total disregard of directions that affected the conduct of the trial or derailed the trial that was still on track at that time, the avenue of penalising the plaintiff under 0. 59 r. 8(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 at the end of the trial with a costs order to show the court's disapproval would have been more appropriate. The said rule enacts that the court in exercising its discretion as to costs shall in appropriate circumstances consider, among others, "the conduct of all the parties, including conduct before and during the proceedings". It would have been otherwise if the bundle of documents and bundle of pleadings were not filed at all or other directions were ignored despite the looming trial date. [36] For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned Judicial Commissioner had wrongly exercised his discretionary power to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff summarily. [25] Pihak Defendan-defendan berhujah bahawa pihak mereka hanya bercadang untuk mengemukakan saksi tambahan dan dokumen tambahan dan tidak bercadang untuk meminda penyata pembelaan yang telah pun difailkan. Pihak Defendan tidak memperkenalkan suatu pembelaan yang baru dan saksi berkenaan yang akan dipanggil akan tertakluk kepada prosiding Mahkamah kelak. [26] Pihak Plaintif masih lagi belum menutup kesnya dan pihak Plaintif bukan sahaja boleh menyoal balas saksi baru Defendan ini bahkan boleh menambah saksi-saksi lain bagi pihak Plaintif. C. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [27] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan pihak Plaintif bahawa permohonan di lampiran 57 ini memprejudiskan pihak Plaintif. Aturan 34 telah diperkenalkan untuk mempercepatkan perbicaraan dan arahan-arahan PTCM diberikan untuk pihak-pihak berbincang dan menganalisis kes masing-masing di peringkat awal. [28] Pihak Defendan-defendan telah mengambil masa yang lama untuk memuktamadkan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sebagai saksi mereka. SP1 dan SP2 dalam laporan polis mereka yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit "P1" dan "P2" telah menyatakan bahawa Wan Hafizuddin dicekik, diangkat dan dihempas oleh Defendan Pertama selepas Defendan Pertama menghempas Plaintif. Oleh sebab itu, kewujudan dan peranan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini telah wujud dan diketahui sejak awal lagi. [29] Senarai saksi telah dimuktamadkan dan pihak Defendan-defendan ini mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa penama Wan Hafizuddin ini tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi pihak Plaintif. Namun begitu, pihak Defendan telah menunggu sehingga SP1 dan SP2 dipanggil dan selesai memberi keterangan sebelum membuat permohonan ini. Sekiranya saksi ini begitu penting, penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sepatutnya sejak dari awal lagi telah dinamakan sebagai saksi pihak Defendan. [30] Mahkamah menolak hujahan pihak Defendan bahawa Defendan tidak mempunyai sumber atau jalan untuk mengesan penama Hafizuddin lebih awal. Hanya melalui usaha-usaha disaat terakhir perbicaraan kes ini bermula, barulah Defendan Pertama berpeluang mengesan Wan Hafizuddin dan menemubualnya. [31] Hal ini kerana Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa laporan polis SP1 dan SP2 telah diketahui lebih awal. Oleh yang demikian, kemunculan dan peranan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini telah diketahui lebih awal. Penama Wan Hafizuddin merupakan rakan sekelas Plaintif. Apakah yang menyebabkan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sukar untuk dikesan? Ada berapa ramai pelajar yang bernama Wan Hafizuddin di dalam kelas KAFA tersebut? Bukankah Defendan Pertama merupakan guru KAFA di sekolah tersebut tetapi mengapa gagal mengesan pelajarnya sendiri? Adakah pihak sekolah atau guru-guru tidak memberikan kerjasama kepada pihak Defendan-defendan untuk mengesan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini? [32] Jelasnya, Mahkamah tidak diberitahu tentang langkah-langkah yang telah diambil serta apakah halangan-halangan yang dihadapi oleh pihak Defendan-defendan yang menyebabkan pihak Defendan-defendan gagal untuk mengesan penama Wan Hafizuddin dengan lebih awal. [33] Peruntukan Aturan 34 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah memberikan kuasa yang luas dan khusus kepada Mahkamah untuk mengawal kemajuan prosiding dengan berkesan dan untuk memastikan pihak-pihak dalam suatu tindakan mematuhi dengan tegas arahan pra-bicara untuk tujuan melupuskan prosiding dengan adil, cepat dan menjimatkan masa semua pihak terutamanya pihak Mahkamah. [34] Dalam kes Syed Omar Syed Mohamed V. Perbadanan Nasional Bhd [2012] 9 CLJ 557 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa:- "[9] It is to be noted that 0. 34 was a new addition to the RHC 1980 made in 2000 (see PU(A) 342/ 2000). It was amended again in 2009 (see PU(A) 237 / 2009). It provided for a radical change in approach to the prosecution of a case in court. An early recognition of this new regime under 0. 34 where the court takes a proactive role in moving the pace of litigation was made by the Federal Court when His Lordship Mohd Noor Ahmad FCJ observed in obiter in Tan Geok Lan v. La Kuan [2004) 2 CLJ 301 at 312 as fallows: The significance of this procedure is that it marks a change from the traditional position under which the progress of cases was left largely in the hands of the parties. Now, under the procedure the court controls the progress of cases by the exercise of its powers given to it to enable it, and not the parties, to dictate the progress of cases at the pre-trial stage, ensuring that the practices and procedures applicable during that stage are complied with promptly and not abused." [35] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe & Another Appeal [2015] 8 CLJ 1 menyatakan di muka surat 8 dan 13 bahawa: “The civil procedure has since then changed with the introduction of the pre-trial case management in the year 2000 under O. 34 of the RHC 1980 (w.e.f. 22 September 2000) and now under O. 34 of the RC 2012 (w.e.f. 1 August 2012). Nowadays the court recognises especially under the new case management regime that a different approach needs to be taken to prevent delay in the progress of a case to trial and for its completion. The progress of the case is no longer left in the hands of the litigants but with the court in the driver's seat.” “The management of cases by the courts prior to the trial is intended to ensure “just, expeditious and economical disposal” of an action. (See O. 34 r.4(1) of the RHC 1980 (now O. 34 r. 1(1) of the RC 2012) and the Practice Direction No. 2 of 2014 issued by the Chief Judge of High Court in Malaya). Timely disposal of cases and the limitation of cost are now the primary considerations under the present regime” [36] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Nur Ibrahim Masilamani & Anor V Joseph Lopez [2013] 4 CLJ 1202 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi dalam membatalkan pembelaan Defendan akibat kegagalan Defendan untuk mematuhi arahan prabicara telah menyatakan di muka surat 1203 & 1204 bahawa: “The unless order given on 17 August 2012 for the trial documents to be filed by 8 October 2012 was a peremptory order which must be complied with promptly and strictly by both parties. This is a new civil court ie, an NCvC established for the purpose of expediting the trial of cases and completing them within nine months, if possible, from the time of registration of the case. As such, it is crucial that all orders given during CM be complied with by both parties according to the timelines given by the court.” “Counsel for the defendant did not comply with the filing of these two documents which were required to be filed in accordance with O. 34 r. 2(2)(j) and (k) of the ROC for pre-trial case management. The defendant’s counsel did not give heed to the court’s order or render cooperation to the plaintiff’s counsel and also to the court to ensure that, for the purpose of a just, expeditious and economical trial as intended by O. 34 of the ROC…” [37] Mahkamah telah memberikan arahan yang sewajarnya kepada pihak-pihak sebelum ini. Pihak-pihak juga telah diberikan masa yang sewajarnya untuk membuat persediaan yang sepatutnya dalam kes ini. Tindakan pihak Defendan-defendan ini menunjukkan bahawa Defendan-defendan tidak mengambil serius terhadap kes mereka. [38] Dalam kes Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v. Citibank Bhd [2011] 2 CLJ 25, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “that the delay of seven months and 27 days before the filling of the amendment application showed that there was no due diligence on the appellant's part” [39] Dalam kes ini, Ikatan Dokumen Bersama telah difailkan pada 9.8.2023. Permohonan ini hanya dibuat pada 12.3.2025. Pihak Defendan-defendan telah mengambil masa 18 bulan untuk menimbang kepentingan penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sebelum dapat memutuskan untuk memanggil penama Wan Hafizuddin ini sebagai saksi mereka. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa kelewatan ini adalah tidak munasabah dan sewajarnya tidak dipertimbangkan. [40] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Christopher ak Bandi@ Josny v. Tumbung ak Nakis & Anor Jamil bin Sindi, third party) [2016] 4 MLJ 100 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “[19] Reverting to the matter before us, to concede to the contention that the appeal before us is appealable, in our view, would no doubt give a party an extra bullet, so to speak, to delay an expeditious trial and would also be inconsistent to the jurisprudence of the present regime of civil procedure. As pointed out by the learned Chief judge of Malaya, the Rules of Court 2012 now provides robust pre-trial case management by the courts before the trial is set down. The philosophy behind the new regime of civil procedure is simply to attend a 'just, expeditious and economical' disposal of an action. Litigants through their respective counsel must understand that they must put their house in order before a case goes to trial and once the trial commenced courts will not tolerate any delay except in the most exceptional circumstance. Putting one's house in order simply means that parties and their counsel must be aware that they have duty to frame their case fully in all their causes of action and defences prior to the start of the trial. Conducting one's case by instalment must not be allowed in the context of the present regime of civil procedure. It is an undeniable fact that many cases had been stayed pending appeals to higher courts on matters similar to the factual matrix in this case, which undoubtedly had delayed the disposal of these cases. [41] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa Aturan 1A tersebut tidak boleh diguna pakai oleh Defendan-defendan dalam permohonan ini. [42] Ini adalah berlandaskan kes Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another [2009] 4 CLJ 329 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan di mukasurat 345 bahawa: “[46] The technical non-compliance of any rule may be remedied where there is an accidental omission or oversight by a party. A general provision such as O. 1A RHC is for the court or judge to give heed to justice over technical non-compliance. It must not supersede a mandatory requirement of the Rules. O.1A RHC cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards in complying with the Rules. Otherwise, parties would be encouraged to ignore the Rules.” [43] Pihak Defendan-defendan juga memohon untuk mengemukakan Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan iaitu laporan polis yang dikatakan dibuat oleh penama Wan Hafizuddin ini. Kandungan laporan tersebut masih misteri dan tiada dalam pengetahuan pihak-pihak. [44] Kes ini melibatkan kes sivil dan elemen penting dalam kes sivil ialah tiadanya tindakan mengejut daripada pihak-pihak. Tindakan untuk mengemukakan laporan polis yang baru dibuat pada peringkat ini amatlah pemprejudiskan pihak Plaintif. Defendan-defendan telah mencadangkan bahawa Plaintif boleh memanggil saksi-saksi yang lain sekiranya perlu. Mahkamah ini berpendapat sekiranya Plaintif dibenarkan memanggil saksi lain dan membaiki kes Plaintif yang telah pun berjalan, hal ini akan menyebabkan perbicaraan ini semakin berpanjangan dan tidak dapat dihabiskan dalam tempoh masa yang sepatutnya. D. KESIMPULAN [45] Secara keseluruhannya, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa tindakan Defendan-defendan memfailkan permohonan ini bukanlah satu tindakan yang bona fide dan merupakan satu pemikiran terkemudian (aftertought). Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa kes ini sepatutnya diteruskan dengan sambung perbicaraan dan memfokuskan kepada saksi-saksi yang telah disenaraikan dalam senarai saksi pihak-pihak dan ikatan dokumen yang telah difailkan oleh pihak-pihak kepada Mahkamah. [46] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas, setelah Mahkamah menimbang dan mengambil kira kesemua kertas kausa berkaitan serta hujahan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah atas imbangan kebarangkalian menolak Notis Permohonan Defendan-defendan [Lampiran 57] dengan kos sebanyak RM 500 diberikan kepada pihak Plaintif. Disediakan oleh: WAN NOR AKLIMA BINTI WAN SALLEH, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 2 Kuala Terengganu. Bertarikh: 22.6.2025 PIHAK-PIHAK Peguam cara Pihak Plaintif: Encik Mohd Hazwan Bin Hamidun bersama-sama dengan Encik Alif Danial bin Ahmad Shahrulnizam [Tetuan Rafaei & Co. (Kuala Terengganu)] Peguam cara Pihak Defendan-Defendan: Encik Saiffuddin bin Othman bersama-sama Cik Yuhana binti Junaidi dan Encik Fakhrul Hakim bin Harun [Tetuan Fariz Halim & Co. (Kuala Terengganu)]