Jeffrey Tan J:

This is an application (encl 4 dated 26 April 2002) by the plaintiff for the following injunction.

Bahawa Defendan-Defendan dan/atau wakil atau pengkhidmatnya ditegah dan dilarang daripada merobohkan premis kedai Plaintiff di atas tanah pegangan GM 905 Lot 10767 Mukim Sri Gading, Batu Pahat dikenali sebagai LC 98, Jalan Besar, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor bagi menguatkuasakan Writ Pemilikan Mahkamah Magistret Batu Pahat Saman No. 72-856-1995 sehingga guaman ini diputuskan sepenuhnya oleh Mahkamah.

In truth, this is an application by the losing party in Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court Summons No. 72-856-1995 to restrain lawful execution upon the judgment obtained by the 1st and 2nd defendants, who were the plaintiffs in Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court Summons No. 72-856-1995.

The pertinent facts, all admitted by the plaintiff in his affidavit affirmed on 24 April 2002, are as follows; (i) on 4 May 2000, after a full trial, the Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court in Summons No. 72-856-1995 ordered the plaintiff to deliver vacant possession of that portion of Lot 10768 Mukim Sri Gading, Batu Pahat occupied by the plaintiff to the 1st and 2nd defendants, (ii) the plaintiff appealed to the High Court, vide Muar Civil Appeal 11-20-2001, (iii) on 12 November 2001, that appeal was dismissed with costs by the High Court, (iv) the plaintiff applied for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, and, (v) on 16 April 2002, that application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Need it be said, that upon refusal of leave to appeal, the litigation between the parties in 72-856-1995 had reached an end (see Ratnam v. Cumarasamy, [1969] MLJ 330 at 333, where Good JA stated: "In the present case our order refusing an extension of time for the appellant to file the record of appeal put an end to the proceedings and applying Lord Alverstone's test finally disposed of the rights of the parties by barring the unsuccessful plaintiff from appealing against the order of the High Court). The issues in 72-856-1995 had run the full course. The rights and status of the parties had been determined (see Blakey v. Latham [1890] 43 Ch D 23, 24). There was a final and conclusive adjudication of the matters in controversy in 72-856-1995 (see In Re Riddell [1888] 20 QBD 513, 517; see also Cheong Kong Enterprise Company Sdn Bhd v. Foong-Seong Mines Ltd & Ors; [1969] 2 MLJ 246), and there could be no question that the judgment of the Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court, which undoubtedly satisfies the test advanced by Lord Alverstone CJ in Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547 and which judgment may not be varied (see JKR Leonard v. The Official Assignee; [1941] MLJ 30), is conclusive against the plaintiff. Incidentally, it was the finding of the Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court that the shophouse of the plaintiff was occupying a portion of the 1st and 2nd defendants' land "amatlah jelas bahawa kedai yang diduduki oleh defendan telah memasuki sebahagian tanah milik plaintif ..." (see encl 4 exh. "LY4"), and as said it was the order of the Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court that the plaintiff do deliver vacant possession of that portion of Lot 10768 Mukim Sri Gading, Batu Pahat occupied by the plaintiff to the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Meanwhile, to enforce the judgment in their favour, the 1st and 2nd defendants had applied, vide Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court application for execution No. 76-65-2001 dated 21 September 2001, for a writ of possession, and the Batu Pahat Magistrate's Court by order dated 6 February 2002 had authorised the 1st and 2nd defendants and or the bailiff of the Court to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to enter and to demolish that part of the shophouse of the plaintiff standing on the land of the 1st and 2nd defendants (see encl 4 exh. "LY3"). Indeed, the then pending application for leave to appeal was no impediment to the enforcement of the judgment, for it is most settled law that