CLIMAX SDN BD v 1. ) NICHOLASIA ELSE A/P A.G DE CRUZ 2. ) SHAUN ADRIAN NETTO 3. ) AXIS DINER SDN BHD
wa-12ancvc-162-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 November 2024 • WA-12ANCvC-162-09/2024 • 5 min read
Catchwords
Introduction 1. The Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court is against the decision of the Sessions Judge who had disallowed an application for committal filed against the Defendants. Brief facts 2. The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was the period of sub tenancy agreed upon of a premise at No 125A, Jalan Gasing, section 10. 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“the said premise”). 3. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had represented to him the period of tenancy will be for a period of 3 years. The Defendant on the other hand contend that as per the sub tenancy agreement the sub tenancy was for 1 year with an option of a further 1 year. 4. In pursuance of his claim the Plaintiff had applied for discovery of documents which include the whole sub tenancy agreement which the Defendants contend that they do not have. 5. On Defendants refusal to produce the sub tenancy agreement as directed by the court the Plaintiff filed leave for committal by way of an ex parte application. The leave application was allowed by the Court on 10/1/2024. 6. The leave application was filed in pursuance of Order 52 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) which provides: 3. Application to Court (O. 52 r. 3) (1) No application to a Court for an order of committal against any person may be made unless leave to make such an application has been granted in accordance with this rule. (2) An application for such leave must be made ex parte to the Court by a notice of application supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the name, description and address of the person sought to be committed and the grounds on which his committal is sought, and by an affidavit, to be filed before the application is made, verifying the facts relied on. 7. The main grounds for asking for committal is the denial of the Defendants that they have the sub tenancy agreement when they had produced the sub tenancy agreement to the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“MBPJ”) when it was applied for by another party. According to the Plaintiff the Defendants by their actions were intentionally concealing the sub tenancy agreement. 8. The main ground the learned Judge in disallowing the application for committal is that the burden to proof that the sub tenancy agreement produced at the MBPJ is the same sub tenancy agreement relied upon by the Plaintiff in this case. Was upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had failed to discharge this burden. This Court’s decision 9. This Court agreed with the learned Sessions Judge that the Court will have to first determine and ascertain that the agreement to the MBPJ is the same agreement that the Plaintiff is relying in this case. Conclusion 14. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal with a cost of RM3,000.
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Statutes Cited
Rules of Court 2012
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-12ancvc-162-09-2024)