Mandatory compliance with procedural rules is essential for a valid appeal; non-compliance results in striking out of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah J:

[1] On 27 November 2017 a judgment in default ("JID") was entered against the appellant (defendant) and two other defendants over a defamation suit. This was followed by the assessment of damages proceedings where the trio failed to enter appearance. Hence on 28 March 2019 the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") ordered each of them to pay the respondents (plaintiffs) a sum of RM86,400.00 as damages. The appellant thereafter on 11 April 2019 applied to set aside both the orders dated 27 November 2017 and 28 March 2019. The learned SCJ on 13 June 2019 dismissed the said application. Hereinafter I shall refer these orders as 'the two orders'.

[2] Meanwhile the respondents proceeded to file a Judgment Debtor's Summons ("JDS") on 11 April 2019 against the appellant alone. Having heard the parties the learned SCJ on the same day (13 June 2019) when she dismissed the application to set aside the two orders made by her, ordered the appellant to pay the sum of RM86,400.00 by instalments at the end of the JDS proceedings. A Judgment Notice was subsequently issued when she failed to make any payment.

[3] Being dissatisfied with the SCJ's dismissing the application to set aside the two orders, the appellant filed a notice of appeal dated 25 June 2019 (the present appeal BA-12ACY-1-06/2019). She also appealed against the decision in respect of the JDS (BA-12B-98-06/2019) which is not relevant for the purposes of this judgment. Both appeals were heard by me. In respect of BA-12ACY-1-06/2019 the respondents raised a preliminary objection to set aside the appellant's notice of appeal. I agreed with the said preliminary objection and struck out the said notice of appeal.

[4] Perhaps I should mention about what transpired earlier. Vide encl 20 filed earlier the respondents applied to strike out the notice of appeal no BA-12ACY-1-06/2019 and cited the following grounds:

(a) the appellant failed to file and/or serve the record of appeal on the respondents within 30 days as required pursuant to O 55 r 5(3) of the Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012");

(b) the appellant had caused confusion by filing the wrong set of cause papers (JDS proceedings) for BA-12ACY-1-06/2019;

(c) the notice of appeal no: BA-12B-98-06/2019 in respect of the JDS proceedings was earlier struck out by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar due to the appellant's failure to file the record of appeal and non-appearance during the case management (It was reinstated subsequently);

(d) despite being aware of the said notice been struck out, the appellant further confused the Court by using the said appeal number in filing her application for stay of the order made in the JDS proceedings (encl 4);

(e) the appellant had been reminded several times about this mistake and the confusion caused;

(f) therefore, there was no proper record of appeal as far as the present appeal was concerned and that the respondents has been prejudiced;

The appellant responded that the confusion was unintentional as there were some issues with the High Court's registry and she had filed an application for an extension of time to file the record of appeal in respect of the present appeal (enclosure 10).

[5] Enclosures 4, 10 and 20 were heard on 12 February 2020 and the learned High Court Judge ("HCJ") dismissed encl 20 and allowed encls 4 (stay) and 10 (extension of time). According to the minutes, the learned HCJ when dismissing encl 20, allowed the issue to be taken up later as preliminary objection.

[6] So much for the issue pertaining to the mixed-up of the cause papers and the record of appeal. The appellant thereafter filed another application vide encl 36. This time it was to amend the record of appeal (encl 32) for BA-12ACY-1-06/2019 by replacing the notice of appeal filed against the JDS with the notice of appeal dated 25 June 2019 filed against the two orders. This will regularise the said record of appeal.

[7] I would have thought that the mess discussed earlier was over without re