Lau Bee Lan J:

Re: Summons for directions pursuant to O. 88 r. 7 Rules of the High Court 1980 - encl. 8

[1] The petitioner, See Hua Realty Berhad has by a summons for directions pursuant to O. 88 r. 7 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("the RHC") applied for directions as contained in encl. 8 which is reproduced:

1. at the hearing of the Petition, evidence in chief be given firstly by the reading of the Petition, the affidavit verifying petition and any other affidavits filed by the parties to this action and secondly by way of viva voce evidence;

2. the parties are at the hearing of the petition entitled to cross-examine the deponents of all affidavits by way of giving to notice of an intention to so cross-examine, which notice shall be served on the deponent concerned not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the Petition;

3. subject to the provisions of prayer (5) below, the parties are at the hearing of the petition entitled to cross-examine the makers of documents filed as evidence in affidavits;

4. that the Court do fix a date for the hearing of the Petition;

5. that the Court do fix a return date not less than 30 days before the hearing of the Petition for parties to attend case management whereupon the Court may make directions as to:

(a) the delivery of lists of documents;

(b) the inspection and exchange of bundles of documents; and

(c) the determination of witnesses who shall attend such hearing

6. parties be at liberty to issue writs of subpoenas duces tecum and/or ad testificandum against all such persons as may be necessary and whose attendance in Court is required for the purpose of giving evidence, and the evidence of such persons shall be given via voce;

7. the parties be at liberty to apply for discovery and inspection of documents in accordance with the Rules of the High Court 1980;

8. the parties be at liberty to apply for such further and/or other directions as may be necessary or expedient;

9. the costs of this application be costs in the cause;

10. such further or other directions or orders as this Court deems fit to make or grant.

[2] On 18 April 2006 after hearing parties the court granted the following directions:

(1) Prayer 1 as amended - "At the hearing of the petition, evidence in chief be given firstly by the reading of the petition, the affidavit verifying petition; secondly; by the reading of the affidavit(s) in opposition filed by the respondents; thirdly, by the reading of any affidavit(s) in reply filed by the petitioner and finally, by way of viva voce evidence."

(2) Prayer 2 - after the words "all affidavits" to insert the words "filed pursuant to item 1 of this order" and to delete the words "by way of giving to (sic) notice of an intention to so cross-examine, which notice shall be served on the deponent concerned not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the petition".

(3) There is no order in respect of item 6.

(4) Prayer 9 - costs be in the cause.

[3] The only disputed items are in respect of prayers 3, 5 and 7. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd-5th respondents, the court's findings and evaluation are as follows. Ms. Christina Eng, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted initially that the court has in the interest of justice the inherent power to grant this direction pursuant to O. 92 r. 4 of the RHC and she sought time to secure the authorities. Ms. Eng later submitted that the court has the power to make such orders as it thinks fit including the directions sought under prayers 3, 5 and 7 of encl. 8 since it is an application made pursuant O. 88 r. 7 of the RHC and not O. 24 of the RHC.

[4] In support, Ms. Eng cited the case of Lai Kim Loi v. Datuk Lai Fook Kim & Anor [1989] 2 CLJ 107; ([1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 61) at pp. 116-117; (p. 69):

As for the procedure, it is provided in O. 88 r. 5 of our Rules of the High Court 1980 that certain applications under the Companies Act 1965, inc