CHEW KEA SEW v 1. ) KALIDAS A/L KOMARAWELO 2. ) KASAEVAN A/L MANOHARAN

pa-22ncvc-152-08-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 November 2024 • PA-22NCvC-152-08/2020 • 6 min read

Outcome

Based on the above reasons, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 57 with no order as to cost. Subsequently, as the Plaintiff has not filed any pre-trial documents and was not ready for trial, at this stage, it is within my discretion to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statements of Claim with liberty to re-file the case and no order as to cost.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (pa-22ncvc-152-08-2020). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, I dismissed Plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 57 with no order as to cost. It is trite law that under Order 18, Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that— [a] it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; [b] it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; [c] it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or [d] it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. The main reason the Plaintiff seeks to strike out the Defendant's defence is based on prayer 4 of the Order and due to the First Defendant's failure to comply with the said Order. However, I found that it would be unjust to strike out the First Defendant's defence solely on the grounds that the First Defendant has failed to comply with the Order. More so in a situation where the Plaintiff is already aware that following their application for Summary Judgment, YA Hakim Tun Abdul Majid had decided that it is not a fit case for Summary Judgement to be entered against the Defendants and that the matter should proceed to full trial. This was also affirmed by Court of Appeal.

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (4)

Gan Teik Chee & Ho Firm N. Ahilan & Associates Firm Hoh Lee Ian Counsel Plaintiff N. Ahilan Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Chew Kea Sew Plaintiff Kalidas a/l Komarawelo Defendant Kasaevan a/l Manoharan Defendant

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-152-08-2020)