Order 14A permits judicial determination of legal questions without a full trial when facts are undisputed.

[1] The following is the Court's decision on Encl 7 vis-a-vis the Plaintiff's application pursuant to O 14A and/or O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012.

The Parties

[2] The Plaintiff, Badan Pengurusan Bersama Cheras Sentral KL including its office bearers were appointed at the Annual General Meeting ("AGM") held in 24 October 2015 ("the 3rd AGM"). The Commissioner of Buildings (COB) was informed the appointment of the office bearers at the 3rd AGM via the Plaintiff's letter dated 29 October 2015.

[3] The Plaintiff subsequently appointed the office bearers at its Annual General Meeting held on 16 November 2015 ("the 4th AGM"). The Plaintiff informed the COB of the appointments vide a letter dated 13 December 2016.

[4] The current office bearers were appointed at the Annual General Meeting held on 26 October 2017 ("the 5th AGM"). Similarly, the COB was duly informed of the appointments.

[5] The Defendants herein being joint owners of the unit known as 700-1F-58, Cheras Sentral, 56000 Kuala Lumpur and /or No 38, Jalan Putra 1, Taman Putra, 43000 Kajang, Selangor were the plaintiffs KL High Court Suit No 22NCVC-566-10/2015 ("Suit 566"). The 1st Defendant (Si Soo Hong) was also the Internal Auditor for the Plaintiff for the period 15 March 2015 until the 3rd AGM was held on 24 October 2015.

Brief Facts

[6] In 2015, Mayland Century Sdn Bhd and View Esteem Sdn Bhd commenced legal proceedings via Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No 22NCVC-537-09/2015 ("Suit 537") wherein the defendants were as follows:

Defendants

Badan Pengurusan Bersama Cheras First Defendant Sentral KL (the Plaintiffs in the suit before this Court hereinafter referred to as "the JMB")

[7] Pursuant to applications filed by Mayland Century Sdn Bhd and View Esteem Sdn Bhd, the following Court Orders were obtained:

(a) 2 October 2015 - An Ex Parte Injunction issued by Justice S. Nantha Balan; and

(b) 16 October 2015 - An Ad Interim Injunction issued by Justice Mohd Zaki Bin Abdul Wahab.

[8] Both the aforesaid Court Orders dated 2 October 2015 and 16 October 2015 respectively, stipulates that the defendants, among others, were not to in anyway prevent or hinder the AGM fixed on 24 October 2015.

[9] Contrary to both the Court Orders dated 2 October 2015 and 16 October 2015, the Defendants subsequently commenced Suit 566 (as plaintiffs of course) against the JMB and had purportedly obtained a Court Order dated 23 October 2015 stipulating among others that the JMB, as defendants in Suit 566, are prevented from undertaking the AGM on 24 October 2015 until there is a decision by the COB in respect of the share units.

[10] At the material time, the JMB, being the first defendant in Suit 537 with 8 other defendants were all represented by the legal firm, Messrs Oh Teik Keng & Partners.

[11] It was alleged that the JMB, being the defendant in Suit 566 were represented by Chong Kok Hon and Poh Tzu Seng wherein, both of them had informed the Court that they had no objections to the said Order dated 23 October 2015 being recorded before Yang Arif Datuk Nor Bee Binti Ariffin. Both Chong Kok Hon and Poh Tzu Seng were respectively the 2nd and 4th defendants in Suit 537 where the Court Orders dated 2 October 2015 and 16 October 2015 were issued.

Issues For The Court's Determination

[12] Via Encl 7, the Plaintiff JMB posed the following question for this Court's determination:

"As to whether the act of the Defendants (Si Soo Hong and Foo Soo Kong in Suit No 22NCVC-566-10-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the subsequent High