Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

At the hearing of appeal No. W-02-113-2000 by the appellant (defendant), Mahadevi a/p Nadchatiram ("Mahadevi"), there are two other appeals namely, W-02-552-99 and W-02-606-99 filed by her for hearing also and which are related to appeal No. W-02-113-2000.

Appeal No. W-02-113-2000 is in respect of two suits namely, S5-23-08-99 and S2(S5)-23-04-97 which were consolidated. The learned judge gave judgment in part in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, Thiruchelvasegaram a/l Manickavasegar ("Segaram"). There is a cross-appeal filed by the respondent. The consolidated suits involve primarily the cause of action of defamation.

In respect of appeal No. W-02-552-99, the application of Mahadevi to re-re-re amend her re-re amended statement of defence dated 18 September 1998 in suit No. S2(S5)-23-04-l997 was dismissed by the senior assistant registrar. On appeal to the judge in chambers, the appeal (encl. 105) was dismissed with costs on 6 July 1999. Hence this appeal before us.

In respect of appeal No. W-02-606-99, a fresh application was filed by Mahadevi to re-re-re amend her re-re amended statement of defence dated 18 September 1998 in suit No. S2(S5)-23-04-97 (encl. 112) direct to the learned judge but it was dismissed with costs by the learned judge on 26 July 1999. Hence this appeal before us.

It was unfortunate that before these two appeals could be heard by this court, the main action in the consolidated suits was heard and disposed of by the learned judge on 22 January 2000. We intimated to counsel for Mahadevi that in view of the disposal of the main action, would his client still wish to pursue with these two appeals. He was good enough to withdraw the two appeals with the consent of counsel for Segaram and that the costs to follow the event of appeal No. W-02-113-2000.

In addition thereto, there are two motions filed, namely encl. 10a and encl. 14a.

Enclosure 10a is filed by Segaran praying for leave to raise additional grounds to the notice of cross-appeal as stated in the motion with costs to abide by the result of the appeal. Counsel for Mahadevi has no objection and we gave order in terms of encl. 10a.

Enclosure 14a is filed by Mahadevi praying for leave:

(1) to amend Mahadevi's notice of appeal dated 16 February 2000 annexed as exh. "A";

(2) to adduce evidence at the hearing of the appeal by producing the following documents:

(a) notes of proceedings in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. S5-23-88-97 consolidated with Civil Suit No. S2(S5)-23-04-97 of 9 December 1999, 22 January 2000 and 25 March 2000.

(b) the police report of Vijayalakshmi Devi a/p Nadchatiram made on 22 September 1989;

(c) the police report dated 23 January 1998 made by Aaron Inderaj VS Sundram and the doduments in respect of Seremban Magistrate's Court Summons No. 85-216-98.

(3) the documents set out in prayer (2) above be included in a further supplementary record of appeal and filed in this appeal;

(4) costs of the application be costs in the cause.

By consent, counsel for Segaram has no objection to prayers (1) and (2) (a) and counsel for Mahadevi withdrew prayers (2) (b) and (c) with prayer (3) to be amended accordingly. We then made order in terms as amended of encl 14a.

Having disposed of the preliminaries, we now proceed to consider appeal No. W-02-113-2000.

For ease of reference, we shall refer to suit No. S5-23-08-97 as "suit 08" and suit No. S2(S5)-23-04-97 as "suit 04" in line with what the learned judge did in his judgment.

Background

The parties in suit 08 and suit 04 are the same, that is, Segaram as the plaintiff and Mahadevi as the defendant. This defamatory action, we must say, is rather unfortunate as it involves family members. Segaram is the brother-in-law of Mahadevi as he is married to Mahadevi's eldest sister, Vijayalakshmi Devi ("Vijay"). Segaram and Mahadevi are both advodates and solicitors of the High Court, Malaya.

As stated by the learned judge, it is in fadt undisputed by all, that