Peh Swee Chin SCJ:

Both the appeals have been heard together, as they involve more or less the same parties and the same subject matter. In Civil Appeal No 01-31-92 however, all the parties are together in the same appeal and it would be far more appropriate to deal with this appeal in this judgment so that decision of liability of this appeal will help us very conveniently dispose of the other appeal at the same time. The issues are really few after scrutiny of documents and submissions though they involve so many other subsidiary but not determinative of the appeals, sub-issues that put us in danger at times of being unable to see the wood for the trees.

We will now deal with Civil Appeal No 01-31-92.

Some of the few questions that arise are, (a) as to whether an order of stay of proceedings directed at the Land Administrator, the 1st respondent herein, amounts to an injunction so as to be amenable to s. 29(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and also s. 54(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and is therefore barred by the said sections, and (b) as to whether an order of High Court can be disobeyed with impunity and if not, apart from the consideration of contempt proceedings, as to what then is the effect of such disobedience.

The appellants (hereafter the chargors) had charged their land together with the house built thereon to the 2nd respondent (hereafter the bank) who obtained an order of sale in an enquiry under s. 263 of the National Land Code before the 1st respondent, (hereafter the Land Administrator). The intervener was the successful bidder at a public auction held in pursuance of the said order of sale and it was this public auction that has been very much impugned at the hearing of this appeal, (the land with the house thereon is hereafter the charged property).

The chargors, (on the grounds that they had not been duly served with the notice of hearing of the enquiry in which the reserve price was fixed and the order of sale obtained; and further that the reserve price at RM500,000 was in any event too low and ought to have been RM615,000), filed the Originating Summons No S7-21-349-89 which is set out below with its sub-heading only:

Between

1 Puah Bee Hong @ Bee Hong (f) 2 Khoo Tian Applicants

And

1. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur 2. Pacific Bank Berhad Respondents

Originating Summons

(Ex-Parte)

Let All Parties Concerned attend before the Judge on 16 August 1989 at 2.30 p.m. on the hearing of an application of the applicants for the following reliefs:

(a) That the order for sale made by the first respondent on 13 June 1989, in respect of a property owned by the applicants and known as B.M. 1434, Lot No 43948 and M.G.7 Lot No 8351 be stayed pending further direction of the Honourable Court. (b) That in the alternative, the first respondent be restrained from proceeding to sell by public auction on 17 August 1989, of two properties held by the applicants and known as G.M. 1434, Lot No 43948 and M.G.7 Lot No 8351 until further order of this Honourable Court. (c) That in the alternative the second respondent be restrained from proceeding with a public auction on 17 August 1989, of two properties owned by the applicants and known as G.M. 1434, Lot No 43948 and M.G. 7 Lot No 8351 until further order of this Honourable Court. (d) An order that the first respondent do determine the reserve price of two properties known as G.M. 1434, Lot No 43948 and M.G. 7 Lot No 8351 pursuant to s. 263(2)D National Land Code Act No 56 of 1965 within 4 months after holding an enquiry between the applicants and the second respondent as the Honourable Court may deem fit. (e) Further or other consequential directions. (f) The costs of this application be costs in the cause.

Dated 14 August 1989.

Sgd. Senior Assistant Registrar

Sgd. Solicitors for the Applicants

The originating summons was herein served on both the cited parties viz the Land Administrator and the bank and on 16 Aug