The court emphasized that orders obtained must be regular, and the right to a fair hearing underpins the validity of legal proceedings.

[1] The 2^nd defendant, Chai Say Fah ("the appellant") appealed against the decision of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application vide summons in chambers encl 14 ("encl 14") to set aside the orders made on 15 January 2003, 13 January 2003 and 21 March 2003.

[2] The basis of the reasoning of the High Court is contained in this passage of the grounds of judgment on encl 14:

"B. Keputusan dan Alasan-Alasannya

Setelah menyemak dan meneliti kertas-kertas kausa dan mendengar serta menimbangkan hujahan bertulis dan lisan dari peguam kedua-dua pihak, dengan sandaran nas dari keputusan kes-kes mahkamah yang lebih tinggi, mahkamah mendapati bahawa perintah-perintah mahkamah yang dibuat dalam kes ini pada 15 Januari 2003, 13 Januari 2003 dan 21 Mac 2003 adalah yang telah diperoleh secara regular dan telah disempurnakan, malah pertukaran hakmilik tanah berkenaan telah dilakukan kepada pihak-pihak ketiga dan kini tidak lagi berada dalam nama plaintif.

Fakta melalui afidavit menunjukkan alasan permohonan secara asasnya adalah penipuan dan frod terhadap pemohon (defendan kedua) dan mahkamah.

Maka berpandukan nas dari kes Mahkamah Persekutuan, Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v. Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd , 2013 MarsdenLR 2558 , Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd, 1997 MarsdenLR 2081 , Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Bin Murid; [1981] 1 MLJ 143 dan kes Mahkamah Rayuan Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Prorak Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2000] 1 MLJ 479; [2000] 1 CLJ 553; [2000] 1 AMR 1071, mahkamah mendapati perintah-perintah tersebut bukanlah illegal yang dibuat dengan melanggar peruntukan statutori atau yang dibuat di luar bidang kuasa."

[3] The above requires appreciation of:

a. orders sought under encl 14;

b. The orders made on 15 January 2003, 13 January 2003 and 21 March 2003;

c. Regularity of the orders made on 15 January 2003, 13 January 2003 and 21 March 2003;

d. Effect of the properties having been transferred to a third party.

Orders Sought Under Enclosure 14

[4] By encl 14, the appellant had sought orders as follows:

a) That the orders made without attendance of the 2^nd defendant on 15 January 2003, 13 January 2003, and 21 March 2003 be set aside;

b) That the service of encl 14 said to have been served be set aside;

c) Costs to be paid by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's counsel;

d) Such other orders as the Court thinks fit.

The Orders Made On 15 January 2003, 13 January 2003 And 21 March 2003

[5] The orders dated 13 January 2003 and 21 March 2003 were ex parte orders. It was submitted that the order of 15 January 2003 was a purported default order.

[6] The law requires that a plaintiff to be prepared to prove his case upon a balance of probabilities. Thus, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Fira Development Sdn Bhd v. Goldwin Sdn Bhd , 1988 MarsdenLR 1287 that:

"Where judgment is entered on the failure of a defendant to take any of the procedural steps laid down under the Rules of the High 1980, the Court has an absolute discretion to set aside the judgment, if necessary, on terms and allow the case to be heard on the merits. Lord Atkin stated clearly the principles in which the Court should act in Evans v. Bartlam [1937] AC 473 at 480 in these words:

... The principle obviously is that unless and until the Court has pronounced a judgment upon the merits or by consent, it is to have the power to revoke the expression of its coercive power where that has only been obtained by a failure to follow any of the rules of procedure.

In the instant case, the learned judg