The court emphasized that pre-action discovery requires strong justification and is not meant for exploratory purposes, dismissing the application for lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Duncan Sikodol JC:

A. Introduction

[1] Pursuant to the Originating Summons dated 27 November 2020 (Encl. 1) ("the Application"), the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs ('the Plaintiffs ') had requested, inter-alia, for the following orders: -

1.1 That the 1st Defendant do within seven (7) days from the date of the Order to be made herein, produce for inspection at the office of the Plaintiffs' solicitors, all the documents mentioned in paragraphs 1(a) to (m) below are herein in the 1st Defendant's possession, custody or power, and permit the Plaintiffs' solicitors to peruse and take copies of the documents requested. The documents requested are all the documents relating to the issuance of the lease in respect of Lot 3 Block 7 Rasan Land District and Lot 4 Block 7 Rasan Land District which includes but not limited to the following documents: -

(a) Letter from Lands and Survey Department Sarawak in Bintulu to Sebekai Plantation Sdn Bhd (Ref: 49/Doss. No. 60/1985) dated 10 February 1999;

(b) Plan No. Ref: 43/Doss. No. 60/1985;

(c) Letter from Director of Lands and Survey Department (Ref: 135/HQ/AL/4/1996(9D) Vol. 3) dated 24 September 2018;

(d) Letter from Lands and Survey Department Bintulu ref: 259/Doss. No. 60/1985 (Vol. 3);

(e) The full agreement dated 15 January 2018 between Sebekai Plantation and the residents of Rumah Muking, Rumah Lisa and Rumah Solomon of Sg Takis, Labang, 97100 Sebauh, Bintulu which was submitted to Lands and Survey Department of Bintulu;

(f) Copy of the latest aerial Map/Plan for Lot 4 Block 7 Rasan Land District;

(g) Copy of the latest aerial Map/Plan for Lot 3 Block 7 Rasan Land District (before it was replaced with Lot 4 Block 7 Rasan Land District);

(h) G.N. 32&33/1954 of Labang Forest Reserve/Protected Forest that affects the aforementioned property (Rumah Nawi, Rumah Bilong, Rumah Galang & Rumah Asun) and its corresponding documents;

(i) Proclamation Letter by the Resident of the 4th Division;

(j) Letter of Distribution of Pemakai Menoa made on 26 June 1956;

(k) Copies of documents, letters and minutes of the meeting on 12 September 1999; - alluded to in gazette attachment;

(l) Document(s) with Ref: 32/Doss. No. 60.1985; and

(m) Any other maps and/or documents relevant to the matter

(hereinafter referred to collectively as the "said Documents")

1.2 That the 1st Defendant do produce to the Plaintiffs within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, file and serve on the Plaintiffs' solicitors, an Affidavit verifying whether the said Documents have or have at any time had in their possession, custody or power, and if any/all of the said Documents have been but is or are no longer in their possession, custody or power, stating when they parted with any/all of the said Documents and what have become of them.

[2] In support of the Application the Plaintiffs have filed two affidavits i.e.-

a. the Plaintiffs' Affidavit No. 1 affirmed by Lichong Anak Along on 25 November 2020 (Encl 2); and

b. the Plaintiffs' Affidavit No. 2 affirmed by Lichong Anak Along on 15 January 2020 (Encl 8).

[3] The 1st and 2nd Defendants had opposed the Application and filed the Affidavit in Opposition affirmed by Nur Azhar bin Bujang on 11 January 2021 (Encl 7).

[4] The Application is filed by the Plaintiffs as a pre-action discovery pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rule of 2012.

B. The Law On Pre-Action Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7A Of The Rule Of 2012

[5] The law and procedure for a pre-action discovery is provided under O 24 r 7A of the Rule of 2012 (" ROC 2012").

[6] In Infoline Sdn Bhd v. Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe , 2018 MarsdenLR 2378 , the Court of Appeal had explained on the principles of law regarding O 24 r 7A ROC :-

[14] In summary, O 24 r 7A (3) requires an applicant seeking discovery of documents before action to:

(i) state the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings;

(ii) state whether the person against whom the order is sought is likely to be a party in the subsequent proceedings in the High Court;

(iii) specify or describe