SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 MarsdenLR 3970

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
VENGADASALAM MUNUSAMY & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SANKARAN KURTY ANANDHAN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-89-06/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Manoharan Malayalam,Kirthiraj Rajasundram ,Respondent Advocate: Ratnavathy N

Amendments to pleadings in appeals may be allowed if no injustice is caused to other parties due to genuine errors.

Headnote:This judgment concerns an application by the Appellants under Order 20 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 to amend the Notice of Appeal. The appeals raise issues on the naming of parties in the Notice of Appeal and procedural compliance. The Court determined that the appellants' failure to name the third respondent was a genuine mistake, not misleading, and allowed the amendment to correct this error.

Table of Content
1. application to amend notice of appeal is under consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. application by appellants to amend notice. (Para 3)
3. the power of the court to allow amendments must serve justice. (Para 4 , 5)
4. respondent's objections against validity of the appeal presented. (Para 6)
5. the court's evaluation of the necessity of naming parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

[1] This is an application by the Appellants/ Plaintiffs pursuant to O 20 r 8 Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012") dated 14 August 2018 (encl 5) to amend the Notice of Appeal.

[2] The cause papers for this application are as follows:

(a) The Appellant/ Plaintiffs Notice of Application dated (Ex-Parte) dated 14 August 2018;

(b) The Appellants/ Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support affirmed by Vengadasalam a/l Munusamy and Muniamah a/p Renu on 14 August 2018; and

(c) The Third Respondent/ Defendants Affidavit in Reply affirmed by P. Umma Devi a/p Periasamy on 29 August.

The Essential Fact

[3] Having read all the Affidavits filed by the respective, I have concluded the fact as below:

(a) Appellant's/Plaintiffs has filed Writ and Statement of Claim in Session Court Klang No B53KJ-17-12- 2016 against the Defendants / First and Second Respondent;

(b) Appellant/Plaintiffs solicitor have been advice by the Insurance Company that Insurance Company has filed an application to intervene and subsequently the Insurance Company has become a Third Defendant in the suit;

(c) On 21 May 2018 the learned trial judge had given decision that the Appellant's/ Plaintiff's case against all the Defendants is dismissed;

(d) The Appellant subsequently filed Notice of Appeal on 1 June 2018 and the unseal Notice of Appeal has been serve on the First, Second and Third Respondent. The Notice of Appeal served on the Third Respondent on 4 June 2018;

(e) On 1 June 2018 the Honorable Court has also issued a letter dated 1 June 2018 serving both the Appellant and Third Respondent solicitors the Notice Of Appeal;

(f) The Appellant solicitor have send the draft Appeal Index to the Third Respondent solicitor on 23 June 2018;

(g) The Appellant solicitor have send the Record of Appeal to the Third Respondent solicitor on 2 July 2018 through letter dated 29 June 2018; and

(h) The Appellant's solicitors have agreed to mention on behalf of the Third Respondent on the Case Management fix on 11 October 2018.

The Law

[4] The Defendants' application to amend the said Notice of Appeals Statement of Defence and Counter Claim is made under O 20 r 8 of the Rules of 2012.The Appellants/Plaintiffs' application herein is made pursuant to O 20 r 8 ROC 2012 where it provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow Plaintiff to amend any document in the proceedings.

Order 20 r 8 ROC 2012

Amendment of certain other documents

(1) For the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings, or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings and either of its own motion or on the application of any party to the proceedings order any document in the proceedings to be amended on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner, if any, as it may direct.

In the case of: Dato' Tan Heng Chew v. Tan Kim Hor & Ors, 2007 MarsdenLR 1053 , Abdul Malik Ishak J held that:

"...... (5) Both r 5 and 8 of O 20 of the RHC should be read together and when so read they confer upon the Court a general power to allow or order amendments to be made.

Rule 5 of O 20 of the RHC deals particularly with the power of the Court to allow the writ or any pleading to be amended.

While r 8(1) of O 20 of the RHC deals generally with the power of the Court to order any document, other than a judgment or order as envisaged in r 8(2) of O 20 of the RHC, to be amended. Rule 8(1) of O 20 of the RHC throws the net wider as it would apply to writs and pleadings as well as other documents. Rule 5 of O 20 of the RHC........."

Order 20 r 5 of ROC 2012

A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top