XXXX v ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH

22ncvc-400-08-2014 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 26 November 2025 • 22NCVC-400-08/2014 • 10 min read
6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Catchwords

PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Defendan memohon kebenaran lanjutan masa dan mengenepikan Perintah dan Penghakiman bertarikh 25.2.2015 serta kebenaran untuk memasukkan kehadiran dan pembelaan termasuk tuntutan balas dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh perintah – Alasan defendan adalah penyampaian Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, pemerolehan penghakiman tidak teratur, selain defendan mempunyai pembelaan kerana wujud unsur frod dan salahnyataan dalam urusan jual beli tanah selain defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit – Serahan writ melalui perintah penyampaian ganti – Perintah penyampaian ganti tidak dicabar – 10 tahun 7 bulan berlalu sebelum permohonan difailkan – Alasan defendan tiada pengetahuan tentang Guaman ini – Sama ada penghakiman bertarikh 25.2.2015 diperolehi secara teratur – Sama ada defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit – Aturan 13 Kaedah 8 dan Aturan 81 Kaedah 7 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM).

Practice Areas

PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Defendan memohon kebenaran lanjutan masa dan mengenepikan Perintah dan Penghakiman bertarikh 25.2.2015 serta kebenaran untuk memasukkan kehadiran dan pembelaan termasuk tuntutan balas dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh perintah

Judges (1)

Hazizah binti Kassim Delivered

Counsel (6)

Erma Rusli & Co Firm Vin Cheng & Co Firm Afaf Abdul Rahman Counsel Defendant Cheng Khang Chween Counsel Plaintiff Nur Ermashawani binti Rusli Counsel Defendant Tay V. Ann Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Ariffin bin Abdullah Defendant Xxxx Plaintiff

Case Significance

XXXX v ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 26, 2025 (citation: 22ncvc-400-08-2014). <p>The defendant applied to set aside a default judgment and order for specific performance of a land sale and purchase agreement obtained in February 2015, filing his application more than 10 years later in October 2025. The defendant alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of knowledge of the suit due to his previous lawyer's failure to inform him. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the substituted service was valid and unchallenged, the defendant failed to demonstrate a The case was decided by Hazizah binti Kassim. Counsel appearing: Afaf Abdul Rahman (counsel for defendant), Cheng Khang Chween (counsel for plaintiff), Nur Ermashawani binti Rusli (counsel for defendant), Tay V. Ann (counsel for plaintiff).

Summary

The defendant applied to set aside a default judgment and order for specific performance of a land sale and purchase agreement obtained in February 2015, filing his application more than 10 years later in October 2025. The defendant alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of knowledge of the suit due to his previous lawyer's failure to inform him. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the substituted service was valid and unchallenged, the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence with proper fraud particulars, and the extreme delay of over 10 years was unjustified.

What was the outcome of XXXX v ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH?

<p>The defendant applied to set aside a default judgment and order for specific performance of a land sale and purchase agreement obtained in February...

Cases Cited (6)

UK (1)
[1937] AC 478
MY (5)
[1994] 1 CLJ 328 [1996] 3 CLJ 541 [1997] 1 CLJ 396 [1997] 2 CLJ 104 [1997] 3 CLJ 305