Abdul Malik Ishak J:

On 21 January 1997, Mr. Gana Muthusamy from Messrs Gana Muthusamy & Co., and assisted by Mr. Hardip Singh appeared for all the four defendants while the plaintiffs were represented by Mr. M. Pathmanathan and Mr. Gan Techiong from Messrs Gan & Lim. On that day Mr. Gana Muthusamy raised a preliminary objection which eventually was dismissed by me with costs. A written judgment on that preliminary objection had been written and circulated to all the parties. That written judgment has since been reported vide Yukilon Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. Dato' Wong Gek Meng & Ors. [1997] 2 CLJ 467; [1997] 2 MLJ 212. On receipt of the written judgment Mr. Gana Muthusamy filed a notice of appeal dated 22 March 1997 as reflected in Encl. 32. By letter dated 5 May 1997, Mr. Gana Muthusamy enclosed an undated notice of withdrawal of that appeal. That was a wise move.

On 5 May 1997, Mr. P.M. Mahalingam from Messrs P.M. Mahalingam & Co. filed an ex-parte notice of motion in Encl. 41 which bore the following title:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA HOLDEN AT JOHOR BAHRU

CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-257-1996

BETWEEN

DATO WONG GEK MENG, JP ... APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

AND

(1) PATHMANATHAN A/L MYLVAGANAM

(2) GAN TECHIONG

(3) M. SAKAMOTO

(4) MAKOTO TOGASE ... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

To put matters in perspective, it would be useful to set out the prayers sought for in Encl. 41. It was worded thus:

(a) bahawa pemohon/plaintif diberi kebenaran dari Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini suatu Perintah Penghakiman terhadap responden/defendan-defendan;

(b) kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; dan

(c) relief atau perintah-perintah seterusnya yang Mahkamah Mulia ini fikir sesuai dan berpatutan.

In a nutshell, Encl. 41 was an application by Dato Wong Gek Meng JP, for leave to cite Pathmanathan a/l Mylvaganam, Gan Techiong, M. Sakamoto and Makoto Togase for contempt under O. 52 r. 2(1) of the Rules of the High Court, 1980 ('RHC'). The application in Encl. 41 was supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the names, descriptions and addresses of the persons sought to be committed together with the grounds on which the committal was sought. It was also supported by an affidavit of Mr. P.M. Mahalingam verifying the facts relied upon. There was thus compliance of O. 52 r. 2(2) of the RHC .

In open Court, Mr. Gan Techiong submitted bluntly that they were not served with Encl. 41 but all the same they obtained it through the Court file after paying a praecipe of RM35.

It is interesting to note that the affidavit of Mr. P.M. Mahalingam in support of Encl. 41 made reference to a letter from Messrs P.M. Mahalingam & Co., dated 27 March 1997 marked as Exh. 'PM9'. That letter intimated a desire to file Court proceedings for damages in the tune of RM5million for defamation purportedly committed by Pathmanathan a/l Mylvaganam, Gan Techiong, M. Sakamoto and Makoto Togase unless they agree to publish an apology in the New Straits Times in the form and manner to be approved by the solicitors of Dato Wong Gek Meng JP in order to mitigate the damages. Exhibit 'PM9' entitled Publication Of Libellous Statements, letter dated 7 December 1996 addressed to M/s Gan & Lim from Mr. M. Sakamoto and Mr. Makoto Togase" and this must be the letter that incurred the wrath of Dato Wong Gek Meng JP. The statement in support of Encl. 41 produced in verbatim the letter dated 7 December 1996 and to put matters in perspective that letter should be reproduced. That letter was worded in this way:

7 December 1996

M/s Gan & Lim, Advocates & Solicitors, 61, Jalan Tan Hiok Nee, 80000 Johor Bahru, Johor Malaysia.

Dear Sirs,

Re: Court proceedings against Dato Wong Gek Meng, Mr. Wong Geok Cheong and Supertex Mfg Sdn Bhd

We refer to our meetings about the above matter.

We understand that the one and only way to preserve evidence of breach of fiduciary duties and breach of trust against our director Dato Wong Gek Meng and General Manager Wong Geok Cheong is to