Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] This appeal is brought against the decision of High Court of Kuala Lumpur whereby it granted an injunction restraining the first defendant from selling or disposing of the property in question to the second defendant. We must begin by stating that there are two appeals before us. They are Civil Appeal No. W-02-665-2007 and Civil Appeal No. W-02-1147-2007. Yesterday, we had before us an application in Civil Appeal No. W-02-665-2007 to extend time to file the record of appeal. In view of the fact that this is an interlocutory matter and time would be saved if we dealt with the merits of the appeal proper especially having regard to the fact that the second defendant had filed his record of appeal we directed the first defendant (the appellant in W-02-665-2007) to file a further affidavit enclosing all the cause papers placed before High Court in respect of the application for the injunction. This was done. For convenience we refer to Civil Appeal W-02-665-2007 as the first appeal and W-02-1147-2007 as the second appeal.

[3] In the first appeal the primary ground advanced before us is that the learned judge erred in exercising his discretion by failing to take into account certain considerations that were relevant to this case. In order to appreciate the arguments that have been advanced it is necessary to hearken to the facts of this case in brief terms. The plaintiff (the common respondent in both these appeals) is, and was at all material times, the first defendant's tenant. The tenancy agreement which the plaintiff had with the first defendant contains a clause which gave it a right of first refusal in the event that the first defendant intended to sell the property in question. We must now say a word about the subject property.

[4] Sungei Wang Plaza is a large shopping centre in the hub of Kuala Lumpur's commercial district. It has many shop lots. All sorts of goods are transacted and all sorts of services are available there. It is a notorious fact that Sungei Wang Plaza is a favourite shopping centre for Malaysians as well as foreign tourists. The plaintiff's tenancy was in respect of the foyer of two cinemas owned and managed by the first defendant. Eventually the cinemas closed. The first defendant wanted to sell both the foyer and the space occupied by the cinemas. By a letter dated 17 May 2004, it offered the subject property (that is to say the foyer and the cinemas) to the plaintiff at a price of RM16 million. Later, disputes arose as to the respective obligations of the parties with particular regards to para 2(b) of the letter of offer. In essence what that paragraph says is that the sale & purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant is to be signed within seven days after the owner of the building (Sungei Wang Plaza) has approved the change of use to which the plaintiff proposed to put the subject property after acquiring it. After some correspondence, on 28 December 2005, the first defendant terminated the agreement to sell to the plaintiff on the ground - and we quote from its letter:

You disregarded the reasonable timeline requested of you in making the application as stipulated in our letter of 5 October 2005 despite your earlier representation that you and/or your advisers are ready, able and willing to apply for the same immediately.

By the same letter, the first defendant sought to return the deposit of RM320,000 which plaintiff had paid.

[5] On 14 August 2007 the plaintiff took out a writ and simultaneously by summons moved for an injunction which was granted on 6 December 2007. That is the order which is the subject matter of complaint before us in this appeal. One of the complaints made by both defendants is that there was inordinate delay by the plaintiff in seeking the injunction. In actual terms, there was a delay of more than 19 months. Now it is a general principle of equity jurisprudence that unreasonable de