An irregular judgment lacks binding effect if proper procedure is not followed, justifying its set aside.

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant who is the 3rd Defendant against the order of the Sessions Court dated 11 April 2016 dismissing the Appellant's application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ( ROC 2012) to remove its name as the 3rd Defendant from the judgment of the Sessions Court Selayang dated 28 April 2015.

[2] There was a civil suit filed by the Respondents, who are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in one accident case. The 3rd Defendant filed an application under O 18 r 19 of the ROC 2012 dated 17 November 2015 after being served with the Sessions Court's Order of 28 April 2015 with supporting affidavit stating that the Sessions Court should not include the 3rd Defendant as it had filed a Notice to Discontinue before the judgment was granted, under O 21 r 2 of the 2012.

[3] The issue raised by the 3rd Defendant's counsel before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs were correct in law to include the name of the 3rd Defendant in the Order of the Sessions Court of 28 April 2015. The 3rd Defendant is also praying for O 92 of the ROC 2012.

[4] The parties, in this judgment will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. At times, the terms '1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants' and 'Defendants' and '1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs' and 'Plaintiffs' will be used interchangeably.

Factual Background

[5] The Plaintiffs first filed a suit against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in one accident case on 11 February 2014. The 2nd Defendant was a registered owner of a motorcycle WFE 1937 and had taken a policy insurance from the 3rd Defendant. Based on the written submission of the 3rd Defendant, the 1st Defendant, the rider of the motorcycle WFE 1937, claimed that on 1 May 2013 he was involved in a road accident with another motorcycle registered number WET 275. The 2nd Defendant then claimed that the defence for the suit had been transferred to the 3rd Defendant.

[6] Based on the records, the 3rd Defendant's counsel filed as an intervener at the Selayang Sessions Court proceedings and was named as the 3rd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant submitted an amended Defence dated 21 August 2014 stating out the particulars denying the collision on the basis that it was a fraudulent claim by the 1st Defendant (at pp 20-23 of the Appeal Record). The 3rd Defendant's suspicion of the fraudulent claim is explained in the affidavit in support of the defence, meting out the discrepancies as to the police reports and the statutory declaration made by the 1st Defendant.

[7] The 3rd Defendant claimed that the 1st Defendant made police reports on 23 August 2013 and 31 August 2013, at first stating that the accident occurred at Jalan Desa Utama at a nearby petrol pump station where 1st Defendant claimed that he turned to the left as he was trying to avoid the motorcar coming from the front and he hit the back of the 1st Plaintiff's motorcycle. The 1st Defendant made another police report dated 22 May 2014 denying his involvement in the accident with WET 275 on 1 May 2013. He also made a statutory declaration on 9 May 2014 denying of any accident and declared that the police reports made on 23 August 2013 and 31 August 2013 were to assist a friend to make an insurance claim for the injury suffered by the 1st Pl