Amendments to pleadings are permitted if made in good faith, do not cause injustice, and are filed before trial, with delay alone not constituting a valid ground for refusal.

Introduction

[1] Plaintiff applied to amend their Reply to the 2 nd to 7 th Defendants Defence pursuant to O 20 r 5 ROC 2012.

[2] The application was objected to by the 2nd to 7th Defendants ("the Defendants").

[3] Upon considering submissions and hearing arguments from both parties, I allowed Plaintiff's application subject to payment of cost in the sum of RM5,000.00 to the Defendants.

[4] I now give my reasons for allowing the Plaintiff's application. Background Facts

[5] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is to recover four (4) pieces of land located at Mukim Simpang Kanan, Batu Pahat, Johor ("the Lands") which was originally registered in the Plaintiff's name.

[6] The Lands are currently registered in the 4th and 7th Defendants' name.

[7] The 2nd and 3 rd Defendants are the shareholders and directors of the 4th Defendant company.

[8] Whereas the 5th and 6 th Defendants are the shareholders and directors of the 7 th Defendant company.

[9] Plaintiff pleads that the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th Defendants are the controlling mind and will of the 4th and 7th Defendants.

[10] The Lands were transferred to the 1st Defendants name and thereafter from the 1st Defendant to the 4 th and 7th Defendants.

[11] Plaintiff pleads that the transfers to the 4th and 7th Defendant are defeasible and liable to be set aside on the ground it was carried out using invalid, insufficient and/or void instruments.

[12] Hence the registered title and interest in the Lands were misappropriated through unlawful means without the knowledge, approval and/or authorization of the Plaintiff. The transactions are impugnable and liable to be set aside.

[13] Plaintiff further pleads it was at all material times the rightful proprietor and continues to be the rightful proprietor of the Lands.

[14] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is premised on fraud and a conspiracy to defraud which led to the Plaintiff being deprived of the Lands. The Plaintiff now seeks to restore the title and interest in the Lands.

[15] The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegation and contend that the Lands were obtained with good intentions and for valuable considerations.

[16] The law on amendment of pleadings is trite. Amendments are generally allowed if it does not cause injustice to the opposing parties.

[17] The application for amendment in the present case was filed way before the trial dates fixed in March and May next year (2024).

[18] In this circumstance, the principles on amendment of pleadings decided by the Federal Court in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v. Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [1982] 1 MLRA 417; 1983 MarsdenLR 38 ; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 428; [1983] 1 CLJ 191 is applicable. The Federal Court in Yamaha Motor held as follows:-

"general principle is that the Court will allow such amendments as will cause no injustice to the other parties. Three basic questions should be considered to determine whether injustice would or would not result, (1) whether the application is bona fide; (2) whether the prejudice caused to the other side can be compensated by costs and (3) whether the amendments would not in effect turn the suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character."

[19] Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Court has to apply the principles established by the Federal Court in