SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN. BHD. v LIVINGSMILE SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI A & T DENTAL SDN. BHD.)
pa-11ancvc-2-01-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 October 2024 • PA-11ANCvC-2-01/2024 • 8 min read
5 cases cited
(0 SG, 5 foreign)
Outcome
Based on the above reasons, I dismissed the Defendant’s appeal with cost RM3,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Catchwords
Upon hearing submission of both parties, I found no reasons or justification to intervene with the learned Magistrate’s decision. In the case of KUNNA MANI A/P P K SINNIAH V SELVU KANAGASABAI & ANOR [2018] MLJU 457 it was clearly decided that a party who is aggrieved by an “inter-partes” decision must appeal against that order and the court has no jurisdiction to set aside the inter-partes order. Since Enclosure 41 was heard inter parte and was decided on the and not dismissing it under Order 34 Rule 2 (3) Rules of Court 2012, therefore the issue on unless order is irrelevant. The learned Magistrate has not erred when dismissing Enclosure 54 on the view that the proper mode of challenging the Magistrate decision is by way of appeal and not by the setting aside application. In the case of Retnam Pillai v Bahagia Trading Agency [1977] 1 MLJ 127, it was enunciated that “in cases of inter parte judgement, the setting aside of the judgment should be by way of appeal.”
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Statutes Cited
Rules of Court 2012
Cases Cited (5)
MY (5)
[1977] 1 MLJ 127 [1993] 2 MLJ 469 [2001] 3 AMR 2981 [2015] 9 CLJ 368 [2018] MLJU 457
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-11ancvc-2-01-2024)