XXXX v 1. ) Cakra Bertuah Trading (WA-A53KJ-401-09/2022)

DAN CAKRA BERTUAH TRADING

CHEE LAI MING (NO KP: 520308-10-5853) …DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. PENDAHULUAN [1] Ini merupakan rayuan oleh pihak Defendan-Defendan yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah pada 25.3.2024 yang telah membenarkan permohonan lisan pihak Plaintif untuk menarik balik guaman ini dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula. S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA B. LATAR BELAKANG [2] Tuntutan ini berpunca dari satu kemalangan jalan raya yang berlaku pada 15.1.2019 yang melibatkan motosikal nombor WC795C yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif dengan motokar bernombor WTC 9863 dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama. Defendan Kedua merupakan pemilik motokar WTC 9863 tersebut. Kemalangan berlaku di Lebuh raya Sprint, Kuala Lumpur lebih kurang pukul 9.00 pagi. [3] Pada 14.3.2024 kes ini telah berjalan dengan 3 orang saksi pihak Plaintif seperti berikut: a) SP1: Govindan Pillai A/L Raghavan Pillai (Billing Officer, Pantai Hospital) b) SP2: Binero Rosalie (Caregiver/Penjaga) c) SP3: Kavitha Uma Ratnalingam (Consultant Rehabilitation Physician) [4] Mahkamah kemudiannya telah menetapkan 25.3.2024 sebagai sambung bicara. Pada 25.3.2024 Plaintif kemudiannya memohon untuk menarik balik kes ini dengan kebebasan untuk memfailkan semula dan bersedia untuk membayar kos kepada pihak Defendan. [5] Alasan penarikan balik kes ini adalah kerana Plaintif telah menjalani rawatan dan rawatan ulangan dengan doktor di sini. Terdapat beberapa S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA prosedur yang perlu dilakukan oleh pihak Plaintif. Laporan perubatan tidak boleh diperoleh sehingga Plaintif menjalani prosedur oleh doktor. [6] Pihak Plaintif baru memanggil 3 orang saksi daripada keseluruhan 16 orang saksi sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam senarai saksi Plaintif dan menurut pihak Plaintif, pihak Defendan tidak diprejudiskan dan boleh dipampas dengan kos. [7] Pihak Defendan membantah dengan alasan permohonan rasmi perlulah dibuat berdasarkan peruntukan di Aturan 21 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Ini kerana pliding telah pun ditutup dan kes telah pun berjalan dengan saksi-saksi di pihak Plaintif. [8] Plaintif sepatutnya memfailkan notis permohonan yang disokong oleh afidavit. Pihak Defendan boleh mengetahui alasan pihak Plaintif memberhentikan tindakan ini dan mempunyai peluang untuk menjawab dan memberikan pandangan melalui afidavit balasan. [9] Pihak Defendan telah berhujah bahawa berdasarkan keterangan SP3, dinyatakan bahawa tiada keterangan bahawa Plaintif berniat untuk menjalani rawatan susulan. Oleh sebab itu, adalah penting untuk permohonan rasmi dibuat agar perihal rawatan atau prosedur yang akan dibuat oleh Plaintif dibentangkan di hadapan Mahkamah. S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA [10] Pihak Plaintif pula berhujah bahawa mereka membuat permohonan untuk memberhentikan tindakan ini secara lisan dan itu merupakan budi bicara Mahkamah untuk membenarkan atau tidak permohonan Plaintif ini dan kos boleh diberikan kepada pihak Defendan. C. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [11] Mahkamah meneliti Aturan 21 yang berkaitan dengan penarikan balik dan pemberhentian. Aturan 21 Kaedah 3 berbunyi seperti di bawah: Discontinuance of action with leave (O. 21, r. 3)

(1) Except as provided by rule 2, a party may not discontinue an action (whether begun by writ or otherwise) or counterclaim, or withdraw any particular claim made by him therein, without the leave of the Court, and the Court hearing an application for the grant of such leave may order the action or counterclaim to be discontinued, or any particular claim made therein to be struck out, as against any or all of the parties against whom it is brought or made on such terms as to costs, the bringing of a subsequent action or otherwise as it thinks just.

An application for leave under this rule shall be made by a notice of application. [12] Aturan 21 Kaedah 2 pula berbunyi: Discontinuance of action without leave (O. 21, r. 2)

The plaintiff in an action begun by writ may, without the leave of the Court, discontinue the action or withdraw any particular claim made by him therein, as against any or all of the defendants at any time not later than fourteen days after the service of the defence on him or, if there are two or more defendants, of the defence last served, by serving a notice in Form 32 to that effect on the defendant concerned. S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA

A defendant may, without the leave of the Court—

withdraw his defence or any part of it at any time; or

discontinue a counterclaim, or withdraw any particular claim made by him therein, as against any or all of the parties against whom it is made, at any time not later than fourteen days after—

the service on him of a defence to the counterclaim; or

(ii) if the counterclaim is made against two or more parties, of the defence to the counterclaim last served on him, by serving a notice in Form 32 to that effect on the plaintiff or any other party concerned.

Where there are two or more defendants to an action and not all of them serve a defence on the plaintiff, and the period fixed by or under these Rules for the service of the defence by any of those defendants expires after the latest date on which any other defendant serves his defence, paragraph (1) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the service of the defence last served were a reference to the expiration of that period. This paragraph shall apply in relation to a counterclaim as it applies in relation to an action with the references to a defence, to the plaintiff and to paragraph (1) substituted with the references to a defence to the counterclaim, to the defendant and to paragraph (2) respectively.

If all the parties to an action consent, the action may be withdrawn without the leave of the Court at any time before trial by producing to the Court a written consent to the action being withdrawn duly signed by all the parties. [13] Secara ringkasnya pihak-pihak dibenarkan untuk memberhentikan tindakan atau menarik balik tuntutan atau pembelaan tanpa kebenaran S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA Mahkamah mengikut tempoh masa yang diberikan. Setelah tempoh masa tamat, kebenaran Mahkamah adalah diperlukan. Pihak-pihak boleh menghentikan tindakan di Mahkamah tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah pada bila-bila masa sebelum perbicaraan bermula sekiranya pihak-pihak bersetuju dan memfailkan persetujuan yang telah ditandatangani kesemua pihak ke Mahkamah. [14] Dalam kes ini, penarikan balik tindakan oleh Plaintif adalah setelah perbicaraan telah dijalankan. Plaintif merupakan warganegara Britain yang semasa di Malaysia bertugas dengan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Plaintif sekarang ini berada di Turkey. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Plaintif sebagai pihak yang memulakan tindakan boleh menghentikan tindakan terhadap Defendan pada bila-bila masa dan Mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk membenarkan atau tidak membenarkan tindakan Plaintif tersebut. Ini kerana perkataan yang digunakan dalam Aturan 21 Kaedah 3 adalah “may” dan bukannya “shall”. [15] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Eon Bank Bhd V Edwina Lau [2006] MLJU 19 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching (David Wong Dak Wah, JC) telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “In any event, it is my finding that the notice of discontinuance dated 2.2.1990 filed by the Plaintiff in respect of Originating Summons No KG 221 of 1988 was effective despite the fact no leave was obtained by the Plaintiff under O 21 r 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of the High Court. This court is now armed with O 1A of the Rules of the High Court S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA which dictates that I look at the justice of the case and not only to technical non compliance of the rules.” [16] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Aturan 1A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 seperti berikut: Order 1A. 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. [17] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada Aturan 2 berkaitan kesan ketidakpatuhan. Order 2. Effect of non-compliance

Non-compliance with Rules (O. 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 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.

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. S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA

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. [18] Dalam kes Syarikat Pembinaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd V Nagarajan s/o Sengoden [2010] MLJU 940 Mahkamah Tinggi menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “In Hanhyo Sdn Bhd v. Marplan Sdn Bhd & Ors [1991] 3 CLJ 1783 , Lim Beng Choon J at p. 1791 set out the principles relating to discontinuance of an action. This is what the learned judge said: “The principles that can be extracted from the aforementioned cases are that the court would not compel a plaintiff to continue his action against a defendant if he does not want to do so provided no injustice is caused to the defendant. Injustice would be caused to the defendant if: a) The discontinuance was made with ulterior motive to obtain a collateral advantage as in the case of Castanho v. Brown & Root Ltd ( [1981] AC 557); b) The discontinuance was not made bona fide by the plaintiff but it was made in order to obtain an advantage to which he has no right to retain since he has ceased to be dominis litis as the defendant has a perfectly good defence – see Overseas Union Finance Ltd v. Lim Joo Chong ( [1971] 2 MLJ 124); S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA c) By the discontinuance of the action the defendant would be deprived of an advantage which he has already gained in the litigation – see Covell Matthews & Partners v. French Wools Ltd ( [1977] 2 All ER 591).” In Covell Matthews & Partners v French Wools Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 876, Graham J said, at 879: “The principles to be culled from these cases are, in my judgment, that the court will, normally, at any rate, allow a plaintiff to discontinue if he wants to, provided no injustice will be caused to the defendant. It is not desirable that a plaintiff should be compelled to litigate against his will. The court should therefore grant leave, if it can, without injustice to the defendant, but in doing so should be careful to see that the defendant is not deprived of some advantage which he has already gained in the litigation and should be ready to grant him adequate protection to ensure that any advantage he has gained is preserved.” Here none of the situations that militate against a discontinuance exist. It is said that in any language, there are no words with exactly identical meaning. Is there a difference between ‘withdrawal’ and ‘discontinuance’? It would appear that ‘withdrawal’ is used for matters like appearance, defence, any particular claim or even a summons as in an application where as a ‘discontinuance’ is used with respect to an action, a claim or a counterclaim. In other words S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA ‘discontinuance’ is used with respect to the main suit or action whether that of the plaintiff or defendant. What is withdrawn generally leaves behind something outstanding to proceed with. What is discontinued would normally leave nothing else to proceed further; there is an end to the whole matter. It may be a fine distinction, but a distinction nevertheless. Pronouncement In the circumstance I allowed the plaintiff to discontinue their action against the defendant with liberty to file afresh with cost of RM500.00 to the defendant. The Originating Summons was thus struck off.” [19] Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa permohonan Plaintif secara lisan adalah mencukupi dalam kes ini. Pihak Plaintif telah memberikan alasan yang munasabah untuk menghentikan tindakan dalam kes ini. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pihak Defendan tidak diprejudiskan. [20] Permohonan rasmi serta pihak-pihak berbalas afidavit hanya akan melengah-lengahkan masa di mana pada akhirnya Mahkamah berpendapat pihak Plaintif tetap akan dibenarkan untuk memberhentikan tindakan terhadap Defendan. Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa tidak terdapat keadaan yang membolehkan Mahkamah menghalang permohonan Plaintif ini sebagaimana yang digariskan dalam kes In Hanhyo Sdn Bhd sebagaimana di atas. D. KESIMPULAN S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA Kes ini dimulakan oleh pihak Plaintif. Oleh sebab itu Plaintif boleh menghentikan tindakan terhadap Defendan walaupun kes ini telah pun berjalan dengan tiga orang saksi. Oleh sebab itu, writ dan penyata tuntutan dibatalkan dengan kebebasan untuk memfailkan semula dengan kos sejumlah RM 5000 diberikan kepada Defendan. Disediakan oleh: WAN NOR AKLIMA BINTI WAN SALLEH Hakim, Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur Bertarikh: 1.8.2024 PIHAK-PIHAK Peguamcara Pihak Plaintif: Encik Awtar Singh a/l Sarjit Singh bersama-sama dengan Encik Ignatius [Tetuan Faisyal Grewal & Co.] Peguam cara Pihak Defendan-Defendan: Encik Jeyaveeran S. Naicker [Tetuan Naicker & Associates.] S/N /s2AmchqvUa1byjHhMOHuA