stating, where the case falls within rule 2(1)(a), the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order; [Emphasis added] The 2nd defendant’s Contentions [19] The 2nd defendant contends the Leave Application should not be granted: i. As he is no longer a guarantor to the plaintiff; ii. One Dr. Maryam Al-Batul Binti Azizuddin (“Dr. Maryam”) had replaced him as the guarantor for the 1st defendant’s debt, iii. the Indemnity Agreement is not enforceable against him after he had sold all his shares in the 1st defendant and Dr. Maryam took over as a director and guarantor for the 1st defendant; S/N VHBeIClyykOdkdlSK1k1ew iv. Enclosure 8 is premature and does not meet the requirements/conditions of section 5(3)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1967; v. The change of guarantor from him to Dr. Maryam has changed the circumstances of this case and destroyed the basis of the claim and the Judgment in default of Appearance against him pursuant to Order 46 rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012; vi. The plaintiff's failure/negligence/refusal to update its system to replace him with Dr. Maryam as a guarantor under Clause 34 of the Indemnity Agreement cannot defeat/override his right to be discharged as a guarantor; and vii. The previous directors, Rinol Azhar Bin Ridzuan and Kamaruddin, had been discharged as guarantors on the similar basis that they were no longer directors of the 1st defendant. Therefore, he should also be released as a guarantor. If he is not released, then this becomes unfair and unequitable to him. [See the 2nd defendant’s written submissions Enclosure 83 at paragraph 1] Court’s’ analysis The law [20] Leave to execute a judgment will not be granted when there is no longer any pending judgment or order to enforce as the same has been S/N VHBeIClyykOdkdlSK1k1ew superseded or extinguished by a settlement agreement between parties [See Pacific Sanctuary Holdings Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Ideal Prestige Sdn Bhd) v Masaland Construction Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 MLJ 692 CA [“Pacific Sanctuary Holdings”]]. [21] In Pacific Sanctuary Holdings, Kamardin Hashim JCA (delivering judgment of the court) said: [21] Another point is that we agree with the learned counsel for the defendant submission that the learned JC had erred in law and in fact in granting leave to the plaintiff for failure by the learned JC to take into consideration that there is no longer any pending judgment and/or order of the court to be enforced as the said judgments and/or order have been superseded or extinguished by the settlement agreement entered between the parties on 28 May 2012. The settlement agreement constitutes a new and independent agreement for good consideration. Its effect in law is to supersede the original cause of action altogether and put an end to the proceedings, which are thereby spent and exhausted. The parties are therefore precluded from taking any further steps in the action. [Emphasis added] Grounds raised by the 2nd defendant [22] The 2nd defendant argued that Dr. Maryam had replaced him as a guarantor and that he had sought the plaintiff’s consent to the change. [See the 2nd defendant’s written submissions Enclosure 83 at paragraphs 12 to 19]. But there is no proof the plaintiff had so agreed. S/N VHBeIClyykOdkdlSK1k1ew [23] The 2nd defendant’s counsel in his written submissions Enclosure 83 at paragraph 19 submitted that: Further and very importantly, following D2’s letter dated 14.1.2022, the Plaintiff acknowledged that there has been a change of guarantor from D2 to Dr Maryam via the Plaintiff’s letter dated 17.2.2023 [See letter dated 17.2.2023 at Exhibit “A-3” in Enclosure 10]. [24] With respect, the correspondence in Exhibit “A-3” in Enclosure 10/86 PDF copyable does not support counsel’s submission. I have seen this letter dated 17-02-2023 and the contents therein do not support the allegation. The further correspondence in Exhibit “A-3 dated 14-03- 2023 and 12-04-2023 in fact show that the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and Dr. Maryam had not reached a settlement. [25] I am of the view no settlement agreement had been concluded. [26] I now turn to the issue whether there is sufficient reason for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order as required under Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012. There is sufficient reason for the delay where the delay in enforcing the judgment is due to negotiations for settlement or a subsequent breach of a settlement by instalments scheme [27] The court under Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 will grant leave to execute Judgment after 6 years if the judgment creditor has in his supporting affidavit—