MELVINDERJIT SINGH WALIA v 1. ) GENERAL HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD HADRY BIN MASRI ONN

ca-22ncvc-18-04-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 December 2025 • CA-22NCvC-18-04/2025

Catchwords

A Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered between Plaintff and D1 in 2014. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance (“CCC”) was issued in 2015. The Plaintiff commenced occupation of the property in 2016. From 2017 onwards, The Plaintiff discovered various defects. Complaints were made but no satisfactory remedial action was taken. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in 2020 and engaged a professional engineering firm in 2021 to inspect the property. Following the report dated 28/3/2022, Plaintiff filed for this action. Defendants, instead of filing their statement of defence, filed application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of time barred. It was held that there are mixed questions of fact and law in the present case where it cannot be conclusively determined on affidavit evidence only. Furthermore, Order 18 requires parties to specifically plead Limitation of Act if they wish to rely on it in their defence. However, no statement of defence has yet been filed by the Defendants. Hence, the Defendants’ application to strike out is dismissed with cost.

Practice Areas

A Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered between Plaintff and D1 in 2014. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance (“CCC”) was issued in 2015. The Plaintiff commenced occupation of the property in 2016. From 2017 onwards, The Plaintiff discovered various defects. Complaints were made but no satisfactory remedial action was taken. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in 2020 and engaged a professional engineering firm in 2021 to inspect the property. Following the report dated 28/3/2022, Plaintiff filed for this action. Defendants, instead of filing their statement of defence, filed application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of time barred. It was held that there are mixed questions of fact and law in the present case where it cannot be conclusively determined on affidavit evidence only. Furthermore, Order 18 requires parties to specifically plead Limitation of Act if they wish to rely on it in their defence. However, no statement of defence has yet been filed by the Defendants. Hence, the Defendants’ application to strike out is dismissed with cost.

Judges (1)

Samry bin Masri Delivered

Parties (3)

GENERAL HEIGHTS Sdn Bhd Defendant Melvinderjit Singh Walia Plaintiff Mohd Hadry bin Masri Onn Defendant

Case Significance

MELVINDERJIT SINGH WALIA v 1. ) GENERAL HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD HADRY BIN M... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 3, 2025 (citation: ca-22ncvc-18-04-2025). The case was decided by Samry bin Masri.

What was the outcome of MELVINDERJIT SINGH WALIA v 1. ) GENERAL HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD HADRY BIN M...?

MELVINDERJIT SINGH WALIA v 1. ) GENERAL HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD HADRY BIN M... is a High Court decision dated December 3, 2025. The case was heard by Samry bin Masri. See the full judgment for details.