AMIT CHHABRA A/L ASHOK KUMAR CHHABRA v 1. ) ANURADHA A/P KODIVAL @ KODIVEL 2. ) RAVENA RAJ KUMAR 3. ) MYTHRINA RAJ KUMAR 4. ) TETUAN A.G. ROSELI & PAUL

Case Significance

Applies the settled rule that a stay of execution of a money judgment pending appeal is not granted as of right: the applicant must show special circumstances, and a bare assertion that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, advanced by a party in default of its own costs orders, does not meet that threshold.

This High Court decision at Klang, delivered by Judge Norliza binti Othman, concerns an application to stay execution of a money judgment pending appeal, brought under Order 45 rule 11 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The judgment sought to be stayed had been entered on 7 March 2025 after a full trial: the court had allowed the counterclaim of the first defendant, dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the fourth defendant (a firm of solicitors, Tetuan A.G. Roseli & Paul), and allowed that firm's counterclaim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that without a stay the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and that there was serious doubt whether the defendants could repay the judgment sum if it were paid over and the appeal later succeeded. The defendants resisted, pointing out that the plaintiff had itself failed to pay several earlier costs orders, including RM5,000 ordered in November 2023 and RM14,000 ordered by the Sessions Court, and had refused to accept service of demands for those costs.

Applying the settled test drawn from authorities including Jagdis Singh a/l Banta Singh v Outlet Rank (M) Sdn Bhd, the court reiterated that a stay is not granted as of right and that the burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate special circumstances, and that the mere fact that an appeal might be rendered nugatory is weighed among the relevant factors. The court found that the plaintiff had shown no special circumstances at all. It regarded the plaintiff's professed concern about the defendants' ability to repay as undermined by the plaintiff's own default in paying costs already awarded, and held that successful litigants who had obtained a monetary judgment after a full trial should not be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their litigation. The court accordingly dismissed the stay application with costs of RM3,000. The decision is a clear application of the special-circumstances requirement governing stays of money judgments pending appeal.