Edgar Joseph Jr J:

These proceedings are a sequel to the appeal from my judgment dated 7 November 1988, reported under the name of Alfred Templeton & amp; Ors. v. Low Yat Holdings Sdn. Bhd. & amp; Anor. [1989] 2 MLJ 202 and arose in this way:

When the appeal by the plaintiffs came on for hearing before the Supreme Court on August 1990, the hearing thereof did not proceed and, indeed, the Supreme Court stayed the same, pending compliance by the defendants/respondents with certain requirements specified in my judgment which were relevant to certain of the reliefs granted, within three months from that date, more particularly, these requirements related to the question of access from lots 48 and 55, Batu Ferringhi, Section 2, Penang, to the public highway known as the Batu Ferringhi Road.

For a better understanding of the issues which arise for consideration in these proceedings I should, perhaps, refer to certain background facts:

I had, by my judgment, held (at p.218 col.1G) that I was satisfied that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing liability in tort against both the defendants in so far as their claims in general damages for trespass, nuisance and injury to lots 48 and 55 were concerned, resulting in obstruction of access therefrom to the public highway known as the Batu Ferringhi Road.

I had further held (at p.220 col.2A and B) that upon a proper construction of the relevant sale and purchase agreement, the sale of the lots, the subject matter thereof, was subject to a right of way affording access from lots 48 and 55 to the public highway known as the Batu Ferringhi Road.

I had also held (at p.221 col.ID) that the defendant company was estopped by its conduct and the conduct of its managing director from denying the plaintiffs a right of access from lots 48 and 55 to the public highway known as the Batu Ferringhi Road.

The reliefs I had granted the plaintiffs, so far as material to the present proceedings, were contained in paras.2 and 7 of the summary of the reliefs in my judgment (at pp.245 col.2A-I and 246 col.1I-2E) and ran as follows:

(2)(a) Against the defendant company, subject to planning permission being obtained (if necessary), a mandatory injunction requiring it to construct, as soon as reasonably possible, a single metalled access road of about 12 ft. in width, affording access from lot 48 to the public highway known as Batu Ferringhi Road, in accordance or substantially in accordance with the plan D75, tendered on its behalf at the trial and complying with local authority specifications.

(b) To give legal effect to this order, I would grant a further mandatory injunction requiring the defendant company or its successors in title, as the case may be, to execute the prescribed Form 17A under s.286(1) of the [National Land Code 1965 ( 'the Code')] and to present the same for registration, thus creating an easement of way; in particular, a right of carriageway within the meaning of s.288(b) of the code in perpetuity over the existing road on lot 39 (the servient land) defined in the 1935 survey map (p.49 Exh.AB) in accordance with or substantially in accordance with the plan Exh.D75 tendered on its behalf at the trial and so affording access from lot 48 (the dominant land) to the public highway known as the Batu Ferringhi Road, in favour of the plaintiffs and their successors in titles, within two months from date of the decision herein, or in the event of planning permission being required, then within one month from the date of the grant of such permission, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Court to do so.

(c) Upon presentation of the duly executed instrument in Form 17A aforesaid the proper registration authority shall register the same as soon as reasonably possible.

(d) There will also be the following consequential orders:

(i) the defendant company or its successors in title shall forthwith from date of decision herein enquire in writing from the relevant auth