Komala Naidu a/p Purushothaman v KANAGARAJ NAIDU A/L PURUSHOTHAMAN
wa-12ancvc-163-11-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 13 May 2026 • WA-12ANCvC-163-11/2025 • 11 min read
8 cases cited
(0 SG, 8 foreign)
Catchwords
Civil Procedure — Appeal — Striking out — Counterclaim — Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012 — Appeal against decision allowing application to strike out counterclaim against 3rd Defendant in counterclaim — Whether counterclaim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Whether pleading was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process — Whether learned Sessions Court Judge correctly exercised discretion. Pleading and Practice — Fraud — Requirement of specific pleading — Order 18 rules 8 and 12 Rules of Court 2012 — Allegations of fraud pleaded in general terms — Failure to plead material facts and particulars of fraud — Failure to identify specific acts attributable to 3rd Defendant — Whether mere allegation of fraud sufficient to sustain cause of action. Pleading and Practice — Particulars — Material facts — Distinction between material facts and general allegations — Whether pleading sufficiently disclosed representation, participation, reliance and loss — Sufficiency of pleadings against individual defendant. Civil Procedure — Striking out — Fraud claims — Whether fraud allegations immune from striking out — Court's jurisdiction to strike out plainly unsustainable claims notwithstanding allegation of fraud — Application of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36. Limitation of Actions — Fraud — Pleading requirements — Failure to plead date of discovery of alleged fraud — Failure to plead concealment or facts postponing limitation period — Whether limitation issue reinforced conclusion that counterclaim was unsustainable. Appeal — Appellate intervention — Exercise of discretion by Sessions Court — Whether appellate court should interfere with discretionary order striking out pleading — No error of principle or appealable error established. Held: Appeal dismissed with costs. Counterclaim against the 3rd Defendant failed to disclose a properly pleaded and sustainable cause of action. Allegations of fraud were not pleaded with the requisite particularity required by the Rules of Court 2012 and established authorities. The learned Sessions Court Judge correctly exercised her discretion in striking out the counterclaim.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Statutes Cited
Rules of Court 2012
Cases Cited (8)
UK (1)
[1970] 2 QB 450
MY (7)
[1988] 1 CLJ 619 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [1994] 4 CLJ 558 [2009] 2 MLJ 672 [2014] 7 MLJ 452 [2016] MLJU 537 [2021] 10 CLJ 238
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-12ancvc-163-11-2025)