Permohonan untuk melupuskan kes tidak sesuai jika isu undang-undang memerlukan kehadiran saksi; hanya keputusan akhir yang boleh dirayu.

A. Pendahuluan

[1] Ini adalah rayuan Plaintif bagi keputusan Mahkamah yang menolak permohonan Lampiran 7 bertarikh 12 October 2023 bagi melupuskan kes secara Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (ROC 2012).

B. Fakta Ringkasan

[2] Mahkamah setelah mendengar hujahan serta meneliti dokumen-dokumen dalam affidavit pihak-pihak telah memutuskan bahawa isu undang-undang yang ditimbulkan adalah tidak sesuai dilupuskan meialui permohonan ini kerana memerlukan kehadiran saksi sebelum Mahkamah ini dapat memberikan keputusan yang adil iagi mampan.

[3] Lanjutan dari permohonan di atas, Mahkamah telah menolak Lampiran 7 ini dengan kos sebanyak RM 3,000.00 dan seterusnya menetapkan tarikh Pengurusan Kes pada 28 November 2023 bagi pemfailan dokumen pra-perbicaraan.

C. Analisa Dan Dapatan Mahkamah

[4] Mahkamah ingin merujuk pada pindaan terkini dalam s 2 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta A1661] bagi pindaan s 28 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta 91] yang memperuntukkan seperti di bawah:

"(1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:

(a) subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;

(b) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;

(c) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and

(d) where a subordinate Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default. ".

[5] Justeru, adalah jelas bahawa rayuan Plaintif ini adalah terkekang dan terhalang mengikut Akta A1661 di atas, memandangkan Mahkamah ini setelah meneliti kesemua afidavit dan hujahan pihak-pihak telah memutuskan supaya kes ini dibicarakan secara penuh sebagaimana yang diputuskan dalam kes Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd 2008 MarsdenLR 1408 .

[6] Di samping itu, Mahkamah ini berpandangan keputusan yang diberikan pada 12 October 2023 tidak boleh dijumlahkan kepada suatu keputusan yang muktamad selaras dengan s 3 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta 91] seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam kes Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP 2011 MarsdenLR 1168 ; yang dijelaskan seperti di bawah:

"[16] The intention as manifested in s 3, read with s 50(1)(a) and the Explanatory Statement, is clear and unambiguous ie, to bar the filing of an appeal against a ruling made by a trial Court and also to help expedite the hearing of cases in trial courts. In other words, while the law allows appeals against a judgment, sentence or order, it expressly excludes all appeals against all rulings made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. Put simply, the intention of Parliament in enacting and is to exclude interlocutory appeals in criminal causes or matters.

[17] As the definition of 'decision' in s 3 is clear and unambisuous, it is the duty of the Court to sive effect to it. This Court has no powers beyond those conferred by Parliament Accordinslv, there is no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal ie, interim appeal against a rulins which does not constitute a final resolution of the whole controversy, or "an appeal that occurs before the trial Court's final rulins on the entire case." (see Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edn, and Resina v. Collins, supra). Justice demands that cases should move without unnecessary interruption to their final conclusion. The rieht of a party who is assrieved by a rulins. after all, is not being compromised, as the party can always raise the issue durins the substantive appeal, if any, which may be filed after the trial process is hroueht to its conclusion.

[18] Illustrations of non-appealable interlocutory appeals against rulings which