Hj. Abdul Malik b. Hj. Ishak J:

This is an application by the plaintiff by way of summons-in-chambers (enclosure 7) supported by the affidavit of Sanglidevan a/l Sinnathamby (enclosure 7A) for summary judgment against the defendants in regard to a piece of land comprised in H.S. (D) L.M. 4277-4311, P.T. 2053-2007 (previously known as EMR 1133, Lot 76), Mukim Sungai Tinggi, in the district of Larut and Matang (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 76"). It was the plaintiff's case all along that Lot 76 belonged to them whilst the defendants were the owners of Lot 78. It was also the plaintiff's case that the defendants had trespassed and built a bungalow, a factory, planted 56 durain trees, fenced up the area and bolted it, on Lot 76 and, consequently, the plaintiff also sought damages and costs.

Under the law, the plaintiff is entitled to apply straight to the Judge for summary judgment without trial under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC") and the Judge is equally empowered and has the jurisdiction to enter and order summary judgment where the facts warrant it or where the case is virtually uncontested or uncontestable or where the issues are clear. It is pertinent to point out that O. 14 of the RHC was intended to put an end to sham defences concocted for the sole purpose of delay and, consequently, causing great loss to the plaintiffs who were endeavouring to enforce their rights under the law (Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co. [1901] 85 LT 262 HL, Citibank N.A. v. Ooi Boon Leng & Ors. [1981] 1 MLJ 282 FC & Shell-Mex and B.P. Ltd. v. Manchester Garages [1971] 1 All ER 841).

In their statements of defence and counterclaim, the defendants stated that their Architect had put up the relevant plans for the construction of the buildings and the said Architect had identified the land to be at Lot 76; these plans were then submitted to the Majlis Perbandaran Taiping ("MPT") for approvals after obtaining the views of the relevant government agencies like the Jabatan Kerja Raya, Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran and the Jabatan Kesihatan. Finally, it was stated that the MPT had approved the plans and had issued the certificates for occupation. Unfortunately, no exhibits were annexed by the defendants in their affidavit-in-reply (enclosure 10A) to support their version as set out in the statements of defence and counterclaim. The affidavit-in-reply (enclosure 10A) presents a golden opportunity to nail down the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. But alas, it spoke of precious little. On the other hand, the plaintiff in their affidavit-in-reply (enclosure 11) rebutted that part of the defendant's affidavit-in-reply (enclosure 10A) in regard to, firstly, the purported MPT's approval of the building plans submitted by the defendants and, secondly, the purported issuance of the certificates of occupation by the MPT. The plaintiff averred in their affidavit-in-reply (enclosure 11) that it was not the Architect but rather the Pelukis Pelan Bangunan Berdaftar that drew the defendants' plans. To back up their allegation, a letter dated 20 April 1993 from Choy Kee Foong, the Pelukis Pelan Bangunan Berdaftar was exhibited. That letter addressed to the plaintiff reads as follows and it contains startling facts adverse to the defendants:

Per: Maklumat tentang bangunan haram di atas Lot 76 Titi Temerlok, Mukim Sungai Tinggi Perak Darul Ridzuan, Guaman No: 22-7-1993 (T), Mahkamah Tinggi, Taiping

Merujuk kepada surat tuan bertarikh 20 April 1993, berkenaan dengan perkara di atas bagi Para

(a) Jurukur tidak dilantik oleh tuan tanah bagi mengukur tanah tersebut. (b) Pengesahan Lot 76 telah ditunjukkan oleh Encik Wong Kai Chuan pemilik Lot 78. (c) Bangunan yang berada di atas Lot 76 tidak mempunyai sijil kelayakan menduduki yang sah dan saya hanya menjadi sebagai juru pelan ke atas Lot 78 yang tanahnya kosong buat masa ini.

Kerjasama tuan dalam perkara ini amat dihargai tinggi.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

(tandatan