A Plaintiff lacks the legal capacity to sue after assigning rights to a third party, rendering claims frivolous if time-barred.

[1] These are applications filed by the Defendants to strike themselves out from the action commenced by the Plaintiff against them.

[2] The Plaintiff is an individual and the purchaser of a unit of apartment known as Parcel no U3, Storey No L06, Bangunan No A, Taman Terubong Indah ("Property") from the First Defendant.

[3] The First Defendant is private incorporated company and the developer of the housing project known as Taman Terubong Indah - Phase 2A ("Project") on a piece of land held under Geran no 12263 Lot no 4789 Mukim 13 Daerah Timur Laut ("Land"). The Property is one of the units of the Project development. The First Defendant was wound up on 16 January 2001 and the development of the Project was abandoned.

[4] The Second Defendant is also a private incorporated company and the developer that eventually resuscitated and completed the Project.

[5] The Third Defendant is the new purchaser of the Property from the Second Defendant.

[6] The Plaintiff filed this action on 19 April 2017 claiming, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the Plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of the Property;

(ii) a declaration that the Third Defendant's purchase of the Property from the Second Defendant is null and void;

(iii) an order that the Second Defendant cancels the sale and purchase agreement of the Property with the Third Defendant;

(iv) an order that the Second Defendant acknowledges the Plaintiff as the bona fide purchaser of the Property and bound by the SPA and accordingly to give vacant possession of the Property with the keys to the Plaintiff; and

(v) an injunction restraining the Third Defendant from carrying out any renovation on the Property.

[7] Both the Second Defendant together with the Third Defendant as well as the First Defendant filed their striking out applications pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012, to wit: encl 14 and encl 17 respectively to strike out the Originating Summons that have since been converted to Writ and Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff.

[8] The affidavits filed in respect of encl 14 are as follows:

(i) Second and Third Defendants' affidavit in support affirmed by Ong Choo Hoon dated 5 May 2017;

(ii) Plaintiff's affidavit in reply affirmed by Veeriyah a/l Gothandabani dated 6 June 2017; and

(iii) Second and Third Defendants' affidavit in reply affirmed by Ong Choo Hoon dated 13 June 2017.

[9] As for encl 17, the affidavits filed are as follows:

(i) First Defendant's affidavit in support affirmed by Mak Kum Choon dated 26 May 2017;

(ii) Plaintiff's affidavit in reply affirmed by Veeriyah a/l Gothandabani dated 16 June 2017; and

(iii) First Defendant's affidavit in reply filed by Mak Kum Choon dated 3 July 2017.

[10] After having read the written submissions filed by the parties, I heard counsel on 12 and 14 July 2017 and I thereafter allowed encl 14 and encl 17 each with costs of RM1,500.00.

[11] I now furnish hereinbelow the grounds of my decision.

Salient Facts

[12] By a sale and purchase agreement dated 23 September 1995 ("SPA") based on the standard sale and purchase agreement (subdivided building) prescribed in the Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989, the First Defendant sold the Property to the Plaintiff.

[13] By cl 22 of the SPA, the First Defendant was obliged to deliver vacant possession of the Property with water and electricity supply ready for connection to the Plaintiff within 36 calendar months from