This is yet another effort made by an aggrieved party to persuade me to have a second look at my decision made in Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Seman bin Amat & Ors [1996] 3 CLJ 263 ('Seman 's case'), in the light of other High Court decisions which appear to differ from my said decision. In my said decision, I held that pursuant to O 49 r 6 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 ('the SCR') an appeal from a decision of a subordinate court other than a decision made after trial is not properly brought if the notice of appeal in respect of such decision is not filed with the Registrar of the High Court as required by sub-r (2) thereof. If it is not so brought, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the judge in chambers to hear such an appeal.

The appellant in this case before me now was the defendant in the court below. It filed a notice of appeal on 29 December 1995 at the magistrates' court registry against the decision of the learned magistrate given on 28 December 1995 allowing the application of the respondent/plaintiff for summary judgment under O 26A of the SCR. Soon after the filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant filed the record of appeal and the memorandum of appeal. The appeal was, therefore, finally scheduled for hearing on 22 October 1996. Before the hearing commenced, the learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the notice of appeal in this case was filed in the Magistrates' Court Registry in respect of a decision made under O 26A of the SCR which is a decision made other than that made after trial; and on the authority of Seman 's case — which also concerned the decision made other than that made after trial — it ought to be struck out. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant merely cited Tan Wee Choon v Tan Kee Kiat (Civil Appeal No 12–22–95) (High Court, Melaka) and also informed the court that a week ago he had written to the Court of Appeal for an early hearing date of an appeal against the decision of another judge of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in Civil Appeal No R3–12–283–95 filed in July 1996 and therefore requested for a mention date for this present appeal to December 1996. In final reply, the learned counsel for the respondent objected to the request, pointing out that the decision on the matter in Seman 's case is very clear and insisted on the dismissal of this appeal with costs.

Having considered the matter, I thought that it would not serve a useful purpose to adjourn the matter as the position in relation to Civil Appeal No R3–12–283–95 is not at all clear as to when it would be disposed of by the Court of Appeal; in the meantime, cases are piling in the High Court on similar appeals. Firm with my decision in Seman 's case and a few other decisions on similar matters that came before me subsequent to that, I made an order striking out the appeal of the appellant with costs to the respondent on the ground that the appeal was not properly brought pursuant to O 49 r 6 of the SCR. If my decision on the issue raised in Seman 's case is held to be wrong by the Court of Appeal, those concerned appeals would be restored in the list for hearing.

Rule 6 was inserted into O 49 of the SCR pursuant to PU(A) 193/93 which took effect from 1 August 1993. The intention was to create a separate procedure for appeals to the High Court from a decision of the subordinate courts depending on whether the decision appealed from came about after a trial or otherwise. Hitherto, the procedure for appeal was common in respect of both types of decision. The new O 49 r 6 determines the forum to hear the appeal — which is to be before a judge in chambers — and only concerns that decision made by the subordinate courts other than a decision made after trial. A decision under O 26A which is summary in nature is such a decision envisaged by O 49 r 6 of the SCR. I had so decided in Seman bin Amat & Anor v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur in Civil Appeal No R2–11–62–96 (unr