Defendants acted lawfully in initiating committal proceedings, justified by the plaintiff's non-compliance with a court order.

Muniandy Kannyappan JC:

Preface

[1] This case started in 2004. Gist of the case was a long-standing tussle between parties on occupation of Phodhiyaram temple at Lot 347, Jalan Muzaffar, Mukim Assam Kumbang, Taiping, Perak. In that year, the plaintiff (to be referred also as Ideng) brought about a case against the first defendant for constructing a building on the said lot. The case ended when the parties agreed to take down the structure and promised there would not be any more construction on Lot 347.

Case Chronology

[2] However, that was not to be all and tiff between parties continued. Its sequence is chronicled below. Reference is made to parties as plaintiff and defendants as referred to in the present civil suit.

• 14 July 2004

Plaintiff brought a case against the first defendant for constructing a building at Lot 347. It ended as they agreed to demolish the building and promised not to construct any more buildings at Lot 347.

• 20 May 2011

The defendants instituted a civil suit against plaintiff and one Nelly a/p Sammuel Peter Simon (Nelly) spelling out that Seema building which was constructed at Lot 347 to be demolished and for vacant possession of the plot. Claim is also for defendants to be empowered as trustees.

• 19 March 2018

In response to an order of High Court (HC) made in favour of the defendants in the year 2016, a dissatisfied Nelly and plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA). However, on the day of hearing Nelly withdrew herself from the said appeal. In a further twist of events, the plaintiff Ideng too withdrew the appeal; thus, acceding to the earlier Court order by HC. On the same date, the COA had set that the two conflicting parties withdrew their action filed against each other and resolve the matters arising amicably.

• 4 July 2019

In view of the prevailing order of HC made on 27 April 2016, which has to be enforced, defendants issued a final notice to plaintiff to carry out the said order. Plaintiff was also told that if there is inaction, committal proceeding would be pursued against him.

• 15 August 2019

But then, plaintiff filed an Originating Summons (OS) to set aside the said order. The OS was heard and on 20 February 2020, it was dismissed for want of legal basis and merit.

• 18 September 2019

Defendants then instituted committal proceeding against plaintiff for not respecting and adhering to the order of HC made on 27 April 2016. To iterate, the order was for Seema building to be demolished. Defendants had waited for compliance of the said order by plaintiff but to no avail. Thus, after a period of three years, committal proceeding was commenced. Nelly was not named anymore in the committal proceeding instituted as she had withdrawn herself from case at the COA.

• 9 January 2020

With noble intention not to tarnish plaintiff's image and reputation as Priest of the Buddhist Temple, the defendants opted not to proceed further with the committal proceeding. They opt to withdraw it.

• 20 February 2020

The defendants then demolished the Seema building. This act is alleged by plaintiff as an act of threat to make him leave Lot 347. He insisted and maintained that defendants had malicious intent and abused the Court process when they chose not to pursue with the committal proceeding against him and henceforth demolished the building at Lot 347. Relief sought by him is for general and special damages.

• 10 September 2020

The defendants in turn filed an application to strike out the writ and statement of claim by the plaintiff. Consequently, costs on an indemnity basis was sought against plaintiff, on the basis that claim instituted by him is without legal basis, thus misconceived, frivolous, vexatious an