A Prohibitory Order is valid post-Judgment, executed to protect the creditor's interests without requiring the creditor's interest in the land.

Introduction

[1] This in an application by the Defendant ("D") vide encl 9 dated 20 December 2022 ("Encl 9") to set aside a Prohibitory Order dated 29 September 2022 ("Prohibitory Order") that had been obtained by the Plaintiff ("P").

[2] On 27 February 2023, I dismissed encl 9. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[3] P is a building contractor. D is the owner of a piece of land known as plot Lot No 10010, Section 6, Town Georgetown, North East District, Penang held under Grant No 162515 ("Land").

[4] By way of a Letter of Award dated 28 December 2020, both parties entered into a contract whereby P agreed to build a three-storey detached house on the Land for a contract sum of RM1.65 million, according to the specifications provided by D.

[5] P claims that D defaulted on the progress payments. P filed a suit against D via Civil Suit No: PA-B52-11-21/2021 at the Georgetown Sessions Court. P further filed an application to strike out D's Statement of Defence ("Striking Out Application") under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of ").

[6] On 20 June 2022, the Sessions Court allowed the Striking Out Application and gave judgment in favour of P ("Judgment"). Whereby D was ordered to pay a judgment sum of RM402,100, plus interest and costs, to P.

[7] Sealed copies of the Judgment was served by P on D on 10 August 2022 and on her solicitors on 13 July 2022. As at 5 August 2022, D had not complied with the Judgment.

The Prohibitory Order

[8] On 5 August 2022, P applied to the Penang High Court for a Prohibitory Order vide an ex-parte Originating Summons dated 5 August 2022 ("OS"). The OS was made under s 334 of the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC") and O 47 r 6 of the Rules of .

[9] Vide the OS, P prayed for the following:

"(a) Satu Perintah Larangan dikeluarkan untuk melarang Defendan Saraswati a/p Nadarajan dari memindahmilik / menggadai (termasuk perwujudan lien melalui penyimpanan dokumen hakmilik) atau memajak bahagian (1/1 Bahagian) yang dimilik oleh Saraswati a.p Nadarajan di dalam hartanah yang dikenali sebagai No Lot 10010, Sekyen 6, Bandar Goergwtown, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang yang terkandung di dalam Geran No Hakmilik 162515 (selepas dari ini dikenali sebagai "Hartanah tersebut")

(b) Untuk tujuan memberi kesan kepada Perintah Larangan yang dinyatakan di atas Pendaftar Hakimilik Tanah, Pulau Pinang hendaklah dengan serta- merta memasukkan dan mendaftarkan Perintah Larangan tersebut ke atas Daftar Hakmilik Tanah tersebut apabila dikemukakan dengan sesalinan Perintah Larangan tersebut untuk pendaftaran di Pejabat Tanah Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang."

[10] On 29 September 2022, I allowed the OS. The sealed Prohibitory Order was served by P on D and registered at the Pejabat Tanah Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang.

Enclosure 9

[11] D now applies vide encl 9 to set aside the Prohibitory Order. Enclosure 9 is purported to be made under O 13 r 8 of the Rules of . It seems to me however that O 13 r 8 of the Rules of has no relevance to encl 9.

[12] Order 13 of the Rules of relates to 'Default of Appearance to Writ'. And r 8 thereof states:- "The Court may, on such terms as it think just, set aside or vary any judgment entered in pursuance of this Order."

[13] In the instant action however, P did not file a Writ. Instead P filed an Originating Summons. Nor is there any default of appearance by D to the OS, since the OS was made on an ex-parte basis.

[14] It would appear that D had cited a wrong provision in relation to Encl 9. Be that as it may, I considered Encl 9 on the merits.

Defendant's Case

[15] D canvassed the following arguments in support of encl 9:

(a) The OS is caught by res judicata becau