Pawan Ahmad J (delivering oral judgment):

After the hearing of the Originating Summons, certain orders were made and in particular orders were also made in terms of prayers 1-A, 2 and 3. As to prayer 1-A there was an alternative prayer numbered as 1-B but after having taken into consideration the affidavits filed in the matter and the submission of Counsel, it was my considered opinion that an order should be made in terms of prayer 1-A rather than the alternative prayer 1-B.

As to prayers 2 and 3, it is the applicants' own prayer that an order as to the calling of the meetings should be directed either to Tay Ek Seng Co. Sdn. Bhd, the first respondent company and/or the directors of the said company. Here again it is my considered opinion that the best persons to call the meeting are the directors of the first respondent company and I accordingly ordered that the meeting be called by them rather than by the first respondent company.

The solicitors for the parties were unable to agree on the draft order and on obtaining appointment appeared before the learned Assistant Registrar for settlement of the said draft on 30 October 1973. The Assistant Registrar quite rightly referred the matter in dispute to me for my determination. When the matter came up before me on 9 November 1973, I adjourned the matter into open Court for argument but in the meantime M/s Sault & Co. the solicitors for the applicants took out Notice of Motion dated 27 November 1973 praying for variation of the judgment delivered by me on 8 October 1973 and it is this Notice of Motion which was taken for hearing on 5 December 1973.

According to para. 5 of the affidavit of Tay Seck Huan in support of the Motion "the applicants are advised by their solicitors, that in view of the difficulties which may be created by the second and third respondents to cause the said judgment to become ineffective, that proper application, should be made to this Honourable Court for an order varying the terms of the said judgment so as to closely follow the prayers contained in the Originating Summons herein in order to defeat any further delaying tactics which may be adopted" etc.

In their affidavit in reply the respondents contend that the application of the applicants is premature as there is nothing at this stage to indicate that there will be refusal on the part of the second and the third respondents to comply with the terms of the judgment and that if at all they should have come before the Court only after having been satisfied that the terms of the judgment had in fact not been complied with. Counsel for the respondents also submitted that in essence the applicants have got the orders that they themselves asked for in their prayers and that it is not proper for them now to come before the Court and ask the Court to vary its judgment so as to forestall some anticipated or imaginary difficulties which might arise after service of the order on the respondents.

At the hearing of the motion before me, Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case of Harrison v. Harrison [1955] 1 Ch. D 260. At p. 264 Roxburgh J said:

The modern practice has grown up from the decision in Re St Nazarie Co. In Re Roberts Kay J said that "where an order had not been drawn up, whether it were an order made in chambers or in Court, the Judge had a right, if something was brought to his attention which he had not sufficiently considered, to stay the drawing up of the order rehear the matter before making the final Order.

I must state here that the operative and relevant words in Harrison v. Harrison are "if something is brought to his attention which he had not sufficiently considered". I have to emphasize on these words for reason that although the hearing of the Originating Summons concluded on 15 August 1973, the written judgment was not delivered until 8 October 1973, in other words the Court did in fact take time to consider the matter carefully before putting its findings