Syed Othman J:

The applicant (the company) seeks to set aside a caveat issued by this court. These are the circumstances which led the Court to issue the caveat: On 14 November 1972 the applicant on receipt of $ 1,000 gave the respondent an option to be exercised by 30 November 1972, for the sale of the company's land, held under Certificate of Title 989, Lot No. 2922 and measuring 118 acres one rood ten poles, for $8,000 per acre. On the 15 November 1972 the respondent with his solicitor went to see the managing director of the company in Malacca. On the respondent's instruction, the solicitor exercised the option, offered to pay 10% deposit ($94,000) and asked the managing director to sign a draft agreement which had been prepared. The managing director refused to sell the land and sign the draft agreement. The solicitor and the respondent left the managing director. On 9 December 1972 a caveat was lodged, against the land. The respondent also filed an action against the company for specific performance, alternatively, damages for breach of contract. On 20 January, 1973 the company caused a notice of intended removal of the caveat issued by the Registrar of Titles, Johore under s. 326 of the National Land Code (the Code) to be served on the respondent. On 24 January 1973 the respondent made an application ex parte

for the caveat to be extended until the final disposal of the Court action. On 14 February 1973 the caveat was extended.

The grounds on which the applicant seeks to set aside the caveat are in effect that (1) the Court was wrong in having issued the caveat ex parte, as the company had not been given an opportunity of being heard before the grant of the extension, and (2) the respondent is not a person entitled to claim title to or a registrable interest in the land.

Ground

(1): Sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 326 of the Code provide:

(1) Any person or body whose land or interest is bound by a private caveat may at any time apply to the Registrar for its removal pursuant to this section, and the Registrar shall-

(a) serve upon the person or body at whose instance the caveat was entered a notice of intended removal in Form 19c; and

(b) subject to sub-section (2), remove the caveat at the expiry of the period of one month specified in that notice.

(2) The Court may, on the application of any person or body on whom such a notice has been served (and acting, if the circumstances so require, i ex parte), from time to time extend the said period of one month; and the Registrar, on being duly served with any order of the Court under this sub-section, shall not remove the caveat until the expiry of the said period as thereby extended.

In the application for extension of the caveat it was shown that the respondent had the option, the company had refused the exercise of the option within the time specified in the option, and the respondent had filed an action in Court with a view to enforcing his legal rights under the option affecting the land. Prima facie a case was made out for the extension of the period of the caveat. The application first came before the Court on 12 February, 1973. The Court considered that it would be prejudicial to the respondent if the order was made for service to be effected on the company, as there were a few days left before the expiry of the period of one month allowed by s. 326(1)(b) of the Code for the notice of intended removal of the caveat. The circumstances clearly required that the Court should act ex parte and the Court did so. But this does not mean that the company is completely shut out from its rights to challenge the extension of the life of the caveat granted by the court, as under s. 327 of the Code it may come to the Court at any time and apply for the removal of the caveat. The company is doing this very thing by this application. Section 327(1) reads:

Any person or body aggrieved by the existence of a private caveat may at any time apply to the Court for an or