ABDUL KADER BIN ABDUL RAZAK v 1. ) PATHMANATHAN A/L MUNIANDY @KRISHNAN 2. ) CREST PROPERTIES SDN BHD 3. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Salinah Binti Abdul Kader (D2 Dalam Tuntutan Balas) 6. ) Murali A/l V Rajaram (D3 Dalam Tuntutan Balas Kepada Tuntutan Balas)

Case Significance

Illustrates the weight the courts give to compliance with pre-trial case-management directions: a pleading struck out under Order 34 rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 for non-compliance will not readily be reinstated, and financial constraints do not excuse the default — the application to set aside the striking-out was dismissed.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, delivered by Judge Aliza Sulaiman, concerns an application to set aside an order striking out a party's pleadings for non-compliance with pre-trial case-management directions. In a suit involving the plaintiff, individuals, and the corporate defendant Crest Properties Sdn Bhd, together with the state land authorities and a counterclaim, the plaintiff's case had been struck out under Order 34 rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 for failure to comply with directions given by the court at a case-management hearing on 24 September 2024. The plaintiff applied to set aside that striking-out order, and in doing so submitted that the striking-out order was a final order which rendered the court functus officio, so that the court had no power to set aside its own final order.

The court dismissed the application. It first addressed the plaintiff's own submission that the order was final and could not be revisited, holding that submission to be misconceived, since the Rules of Court confer power to set aside an order striking out for non-compliance in an appropriate case, so the court was not functus officio in the manner suggested. On the merits, however, the court was not persuaded to set aside the striking-out order on the grounds advanced. It emphasised that compliance with pre-trial case-management directions is essential to the just and expeditious disposal of proceedings, and that allowing financial constraints to excuse non-compliance in the circumstances of the case would set a dangerous precedent, effectively permitting parties to disregard court directions at will. The court accordingly dismissed the application, with no order as to costs. The decision signals that pre-trial directions are not aspirational timetables but binding orders whose breach carries real consequences, and that a party which has ignored them cannot expect the court to rescue its case as a matter of course once the sanction of striking out has fallen. The judgment illustrates the importance the courts attach to compliance with case-management directions and the limited basis on which a striking-out for non-compliance under Order 34 will be set aside.