JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Enclosure 87

[1] It is the plaintiff's application to stay,inter alia, all further proceedings before this court or alternatively the plaintiff's appeal in encl. 39B to the judge in chambers pending the disposal of the suit in the Kuala Lumpur High court civil suit no: S4 (S2)-21-14-1997 (the impeachment proceedings). Enclosure 87 is supported by an affidavit affirmed by Ng Sow Hua on 27 April 1999 as seen in encl. 88. The defendant opposes the plaintiff's application and the defendant affirms an affidavit in opposition through one Siva Kumar a/l Sundram on 20 May 1999 as seen in encl. 90.

Brief Facts

[2] The relevant facts may be stated as follows. These present foreclosure proceedings are a result of a loan in the sum of RM252,000 given by the plaintiff to the defendant and the security for the loan being the charge of the defendant's house in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant's property"). In the final analysis, it was ordered in these present proceedings that the order for sale that had been obtained by the plaintiff to foreclose the defendant's property be set aside and that damages be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as assessed by the learned senior assistant registrar ("SAR"). Damages was duly assessed by the SAR on 4 February 1997 and the sum of RM250,000 was awarded to the defendant as seen in encl. 46. The plaintiff has appealed to the judge in chambers against the decision of the SAR. And it is this appeal that was referred to earlier as encl. 39B.

[3] At the present moment, there are two outstanding applications in these proceedings, not including the present application in encl. 87, and they are as follows:

(a) enclosure 37 - this is the plaintiff's application for a stay of execution of the order for damages until the disposal of the plaintiff's appeal against that order to the judge in chambers; and

(b) enclosure 39B - it is the plaintiff's notice of appeal to the judge in chambers against the order by the SAR awarding damages of RM250,000 to the defendant.

The Impeachment Proceedings

[4] On 18 February 1997, the plaintiff instituted an action in the Kuala Lumpur High court civil suit no: S4(S2)-21-14-97 (impeachment proceedings) seeking for, inter alia, the impeachment of all orders, judgments or decrees of the High court in the present proceedings obtained after July 1993 on the grounds of fraud by the defendant and several other individuals named in the proceedings.

[5] It is pertinent to mention that the writ of summons and the statement of claim of the impeachment proceedings are exhibited in exh. "NSH1" of encl. 88. And the parties to the impeachment proceedings are as follows:

(a) the plaintiff in these present proceedings is also the plaintiff in the impeachment proceedings;

(b) the defendant in these present proceedings is the first defendant in the impeachment proceedings;

(c) that Mr. Kanawagi a/l Seperumaniam of Messrs Khana & Co., the solicitors acting for the defendant in these present proceedings, has been named as the second defendant in the impeachment proceedings;

(d) the third defendant in the impeachment proceedings is JR Gopinath @ JR Jaya Jaegauby;

(e) the fourth defendant in the impeachment proceedings is Siva Kumar a/l Subramaniam;

(f) the fifth defendant in the impeachment proceedings is Ratnasamy a/l Subramaniam; and

(g) the sixth defendant in the impeachment proceedings is the Pendaftar Hakmilik Wilayah Persekutuan.

[6] The particulars of fraud that has been alleged in the impeachment proceedings are particularised in the statement of claim filed in the impeachment proceedings.

The Basis Of The Impeachment Proceedings

[7] Essentially, after reading the statement of claim, it can be said that the basis of the impeachment proceedings lies in the fact that all the actions taken by the defendant in these proceedings after July 1993 were not taken by the defendant personally but rather by her purported Powers of Attorney. These present proceedi