1. ) S. SELVARAJA A/L SANGARA PILLAI 2. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L M. SANGARAPILLAI v 1. ) XXXX 2. ) JAYA CHENDRACUMAR KUMARI A/P SINGOVAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the discipline of belated execution under Order 46 rule 2(3): a judgment creditor who delays enforcement for years must give valid and sufficient reasons, following Ratnam v Cumarasamy, and bare assertion of an entitlement to enforce will not secure leave.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for leave to issue a writ of execution long after judgment, and the need to justify delay in enforcement. The plaintiffs applied under Order 46 rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to issue an execution writ to enforce a judgment dated December 2013, seeking to extend the time for execution to September 2025. Because the parties are natural persons named only as litigants, this analysis refers to them by role. The court dismissed the application with costs.

Under the rules of court, where a substantial period has elapsed since judgment, a judgment creditor may not issue execution as of right but must obtain the court's leave, and the grant of leave is a matter for the court's discretion. That discretion is not exercised in the creditor's favour automatically; the applicant must place before the court material justifying the delay. The court applied the principle, drawn from authority such as Ratnam v Cumarasamy — a decision of the Privy Council — that the rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and that to justify extending the time for a step in procedure there must be some material upon which the court can exercise its discretion. Were it otherwise, a party in breach would enjoy an unqualified right to an extension, defeating the very purpose of the rules.

On the facts, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to offer compelling or sufficient reasons to justify the long delay in enforcing the 2013 judgment, and accordingly dismissed the application with costs of RM2,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of the discipline attaching to belated execution: a judgment creditor who has allowed many years to pass before seeking to enforce must give a valid and sufficient explanation for the delay, and mere assertion of an entitlement to enforce will not, without more, move the court to grant leave.