Procedural compliance is critical in Judgment Debtor Summons; historical financial records may be pertinent for understanding a debtor's liabilities under Section 4 of the Debtors Act 1957.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal to the Judge in Chambers against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar relating to a Judgment Debtor Summons (JDS).

[2] It concerns documents which can be ordered by the Court to be produced by the Judgment Debtor in a Judgment Debtor Summons.

[3] Parties will be referred to as the Judgment Creditor (JC) and Judgment Debtor (JD) respectively.

[4] All the above three appeals were heard together. This judgment is for all three appeals.

Background Facts

[5] The JC had commenced three (3) individual civil suits in the Sessions Court for outstanding rental against its tenants' ie Tirai Prospektif Sdn Bhd, Dazzling Density Sdn Bhd and Agenda Fokus Sdn Bhd The JD was the guarantor for the payment of rental from these tenants pursuant to a letter of undertaking furnished to the JC.

[6] The three suits were heard together and their details are as follows:

a. JB-B52NCVC-01 -01/2019.

b. JB-B52NCVC-02-01/2019.

c. JB-B52NCVC-03-01/2019.

[7] The claim against the JD as a guarantor in all the three above suits was dismissed.

[8] However, on appeal to the High Court, the claim against the JD was allowed and judgment was entered against the JD in all the above three (3) suits on 4 September 2023.

[9] The total judgment sum owed by the JD to the JC in all three (3) civil suits amounts to RM8,083,324.89 inclusive of interest calculated as of the filing date of JDS on 4 December 2023.

[10] The JC had issued three (3) separate JDS against the JD based on the three (3) judgments granted by the High Court in the three (3) Appeals brought by the JC against the decision of the Sessions Court dismissing the JC's claim against the JD.

[11] Both parties had filed their respective Bundles of Documents for the JDS hearing.

[12] Before the commencement of the JDS hearing, the JC had orally applied before the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) for an order against the JD to produce the bank statements for the years 2018 up to the date of hearing of the JDS. This was objected to by the JD.

[13] The learned SAR dismissed the JC's application on the grounds that the JC ought to have made a formal written application under O 48 Rules of Court 2012.

Analysis And Finding

[14] When this appeal came before me, I realised that it concerned not only the production of JD's bank statements but a few other issues not raised by the parties. I believe these issues are important and I shall address the same in the later part of my judgment.

Production Of The Statement Of Account

[15] In my judgment, there are two (2) parts concerning this issue. One is the procedural aspect. The other is the substantive part. I will address the procedure first.

[16] According to the JC, the JD as early as in the year 2018, had acknowledged that they could be liable to the JC. This can be seen from the JD's Annual Report for the year 2019 wherein the JD disclosed in that report that they were facing three (3) civil suits in Segamat Sessions Court. They further stated in their report that they could be liable to pay the outstanding rental and therefore had made the necessary provision to settle the same.

The relevant paragraph in the JD's Annual Report is produced below:

"25. Material litigations and claims

The Company was served with three Writs by MTrustee Berhad, the trustee of the buyer of its previously owned investment properties, to claim for total outstanding rentals by