The court upheld the injunction, emphasizing the need to preserve status quo pending resolution of serious disputes over property fraud.

[1] The matter before this court is an application by the first defendant (Encl 27) to set aside the Injunction Order granted by the court to the plaintiff on 02 August 2016. After studying the written submissions filed by both parties and the subsequent oral submissions, this court decided to dismiss the application on 21 December 2016.

[2] The first defendant being dissatisfied with the decision of this court then filed a Notice of Appeal to the court of Appeal hence these grounds for decision.

B. Background Of The Case

[3] The Injunction Order restrains dealings on a piece of land held under Geran Hakmilik No 47404, Lot No 7645. Mukim Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor ("the land") which formed the subject matter of this suit. The land is currently registered in the first defendant's name.

[4] On 02 December 2015 the plaintiffs as purchasers and the second defendant as vendor entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) for the purchase of the land upon these terms:-

(a) The purchase price of the land is RM 1,800,000.00.

(b) A sum of RM 1,500,000.00 shall be paid by the purchaser to the second defendant upon the SPA being executed.

(c) The balance of purchase price in the sum of RM 300,000.00 shall be paid within six (6) months from the date of the SPA (on or before 02 June 2016).

(d) The plaintiffs are entitled to lodge a private caveat upon an execution of the SPA which the plaintiffs did under presentation No 62859/2015.

[5] The plaintiffs duly paid the second defendant the RM 1,500,000.00 as agreed and the original title of the land was delivered to the plaintiffs' solicitor.

[6] Pending the completion of the sale, the plaintiff 's conducted a search at the land office on 02 March 2016. It was then discovered that their private caveat lodged on 02 December 2015 had been removed on 29 December 2015 without their knowledge and consent. The land has also been transferred to the first defendant.

[7] The plaintiffs aver that their private caveat has been removed via Notis Untuk Menarik Balik Kaveat Persendirian under presentation No 67970/15 which contained forged signatures of the plaintiffs and their SPA solicitor.

[8] Upon the removal of the private caveat, a transfer under presentation No 138909/15 was effected by the second defendant to the first defendant allegedly for the sum of RM 500,000.00. The removal of the caveat and the transfer were presented by M/s John & Associates, the first defendant's then solicitor.

[9] The plaintiffs immediately lodged police reports upon these discoveries and through their solicitor wrote to the second defendant's solicitor on 02 March 2016 and 09 March 2016 demanding an explanation but the letters went unheeded.

[10] A letter was also written to the first defendant's solicitor seeking an explanation but this also went unanswered. The plaintiffs then filed the suit on 08 June 2016.

[11] The plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction on an ex parte basis to restrain dealings in the land, preserve the status quo and to protect the interest of the plaintiffs.

[12] The ex parte injunction was granted on 16 June 2016 with the inter parte hearing being fixed on 01 July 2016 with the relevant documents being served on the first defendant On 30 June 2016 the first defendant solicitor informed that they would represent the first defendant but another firm of solicitor would mention on their behalf on 01 July 2016 seeking a fresh hearing date whilst getting instructions from the first defendant.

[13] On 01 July 2016 a lawyer named Ameleena menti