Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA:

The present motion first came before us on 7 December 2000 but it had to be postponed on an application by the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 & 2 on the ground, according to him, that the notice of motion had yet to be served and the notice of hearing for that day was served by way of fax to his office at about 2.42pm the day before. The learned counsel further said that his client ought to be given leave to file an affidavit-in-reply. We then postponed the motion to 5 January 2001.

The applicant/appellant, by this motion prays for an order "that the order of the High Court dated 19 October 2000 setting aside an ex parteinjunction order dated 29 March 2000 be set aside and the ex parteinjunction order dated 29 March 2000 continue to be in force and effect" until the disposal of the applicant/appellant's appeal. In other words the effect of the present application is to bring back to life theex parteinjunction granted on 29 March 2000 and to continue in full force and effect until the final disposal of the appeal by this court.

The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, in support of his application, cited the case of Umas Sendirian Bhd v. Rhb Bank Bhd & Anor[2000] 6 CLJ 564. The learned judge in that case cited with favour the decision in Lim Nyok Yin v. Ultratech Sdn Bhd[1995] 1 CLJ 209and quoted a passage from the judgment of Abdul Malik Ishak J which reads:

In Lim Nyok Yin v. Ultratech Sdn Bhd[1995] 1 CLJ 209His Lordship Abdul Malik Ishak J at p. 217 said:

The proposition that Mr. A Selvanathan has no right to apply for a return date whilst making an application for an ex parteinterim injunction under O. 29 r. 1(2B) of the RHCand, consequently, that the court has no power to fix a return date, is entirely without merit. The words, as suggested by Mr. A. Selvanathan appearing in O. 29 r. 1(2B) of the RHCespecially the expression 'unless sooner revoked or set aside' would, by itself, give the power to the court to set a return date for aninter parteshearing. This is the best way for the defendants to revoke or set aside the ex parteinterim injunction before the expiry of two weeks. ... Now, with the insertion of r. 1(2B) to O. 29 of the RHC, the rules committee must have intended that all ex parteinterim injunctions be valid for two weeks and return dates be given forthwith, preferably before the expiry of the two weeks to enable the matter to be argued fully. It must also be pointed out that in the inter parteshearing, the ex parteinterim injunction may be further extended inter partesuntil the disposal of the main suit. That the court has such an inherent power to make such an order is beyond dispute (see O. 92 r. 4 of the RHC).

The above passage ends with a note that is capable of supporting the proposition that an ex parteinjunction can be extended from time to time until the disposal of the main suit notwithstanding that under O. 29 r. 1(2B)it remains effective for only two weeks (now amended to 21 days). We think the position should be made clear. For the purpose of the present application, it may be convenient that we repeat the provisions as provided under O. 29 r. 1(1), (2), (2B) and (2BA) of the Rules of High Court 1980.

(1) An application for the grant of an injunction may be made by any party to a cause or matter before or after the trial of the cause or matter, whether or not a claim for the injunction was included in that party's writ, originating summons counterclaim or third party notice, as the case may be.

(2) Where the applicant is the plaintiff and the case is one of urgency such application may be made ex parteby summons supported by an affidavit but, except as aforesaid, such application must be made by summons.

(2A) ...

(2B) Unless sooner revoked or set aside, an interim injunction obtained on an ex parteapplication shall automatically lapse at the end of 21 days from the date on which it is granted.

(2BA) The ex parteinterim injunction must be served on