Ghazali Cha JC:

[1] The plaintiff's claim in this case is based upon a Sale & Purchase Agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant on 19 November 2004 ('the said Agreement'). According to the said Agreement, the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to buy the plaintiff's land which has an area of about 5.8274 hectares (or 14.4 acres) and known as Grant No: 101840 Lot 325 Mukim Simpang Kanan in Batu Pahat ('the plaintiff's land').

[2] The defendant is occupying the plaintiff's land but disputing the date when payment of the balance 90% of the purchase price was due to the plaintiff. This dispute arose because this date was to be calculated from the date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaintiff's land to the defendant. The plaintiff had filed an O 14A application with a Certificate of Urgency to seek an early hearing for the said application. The ground given by the plaintiff for using O 14A was that a determination of the construction of the Special Conditions in the said Agreement will finally determine the date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaintiff's land to the defendant as well as the date when payment of the 90% purchase price was due under the said Agreement.

[3]Order 14A is a relatively new provision in our Rules of the High 1980. It reads as follows:

(1) 1.(1) The Court may upon the application of a party or of its own motion determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that:

(a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and

(b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein;

(2) Upon such determination, the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just.

(3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question.

(4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar.

(5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under O 18 r 19, or any other provision of these rules.

2. An application under r 1 may be made by summons or motion or may be made orally in the course of any interlocutory application to the Court.

[4] I found that the contents and exhibits in the affidavits filed by both sides show that the material facts are not in dispute. The material facts in this case are as follows:

(a) The terms and conditions for the sale and purchase of the plaintiff's land are all contained in the Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 19 November 2004.

(b) There were 40 squatters and a school known as Sekolah Rendah Hwa Nan ('the School') located on the plaintiff's land at the time of their Agreement on 19 November 2004.

(c) The School only occupied about 0.75 acre which was about five percent (5%) of the total land area of the Plaintiff's land which is 14.4 acres.

(d) There were four gates, located at four different parts of the fencing, around the School.

(e) On 16 November 2005 the plaintiff's conveyancing solicitors Messrs Gan & Tey wrote to the defendant's conveyancing solicitors Messrs Ajmer Sandhu & Ong to propose a joint inspection of the plaintiff's land to be held on 18 November 2005 to handover vacant possession to the defendant.

(f) Messrs Ajmer Sandhu & Ong replied on 17 November 2005 on behalf of the defendant and fixed the date of 21 November 2005 and time of 2.30pm for a joint inspection of the plaintiff's land.

(g) On 21 November 2005 the plaintiff's representatives and the defendant's representative did meet at the plaintiffs land and they carried out the joint inspection.

(h) After the joint inspection was carried out on 21 November 2005 while they were still at the School, the defendant's representative Mr Yiap Toon Cheng wrote, by hand, these words: 'I have jointly inspected the school site with Mr Edwin Tan & Mr