Wan Adnan Ismail FCJ:

By the agreement in writing dated 6 July 1970 Tan Kooi Fook and Leong Chew Wai the plaintiff and defendant respectively in this suit entered into an agreement for the development of the defendant's land held under Lot No. 2632 Mukim of Ulu Bernam East, District of Batang Padang, Perak (the said land). In the suit the plaintiff sued the defendant in respect of 14 subdivided lots of the said land which the plaintiff alleged the defendant had agreed to transfer to the plaintiff.

By the order dated 31 July 1992 the High Court at Ipoh on an ex parte application of the plaintiff made an interlocutory order as follows:

Dengan Ini Adalah Diperintahkan bahawa defendan dilarang sehingga perintah selanjutnya oleh dirinya sendiri atau oleh penggaji ajen ataupun dengan apa jua cara yang lain daripada menjual, menggadai, menyerahhak ataupun dengan dengan apa-apa aset-asetnya dalam bidangkuasa keutamaannya tanah-tanah yang dikenali sebagai H.S.(M) 110/73, 111/73, 121/73, 123/73, 124/73, 125/73, 126/73, 127/73, 128/ 73, 129/73, 130/73, 131/73, 132/73 dan 133/73 bagi Lot 5988, 5989, 5999, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6004, 6005, 6006, 6007, 6008, 6009, 6010, 6011 semua Ulu Bernam bangunanbangunan di atasnya.

Dan Selanjutnya Diperintahkan bahawa Pentadbir Tanah berkenaan memasuki satu kaveat pendaftar atas tanah-tanah yang dikenali sebagai H.S.(M) 110/73, 111/ 73, 121/73, 123/73, 124/73, 125/73, 126/73, 127/73, 128/73, 129/73, 130/73, 131/73, 132/73 dan 133/73 bagi Lot 5988, 5989, 5999, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6004, 6005, 6006, 6007, 6008, 6009, 6010, 6011 semua Ulu Bernam sehingga perintah selanjutnya.

Dan Adalah Diperintahkan bahawa defendan hendaklah mengemukakan kepada plaintif tempat di mana wang yang dikutipnya daripada jualan tanah yang dikenali sebagai H.S.(M) 110/73, 111/73, 121/73, 123/73, 124/73, 125/73, 126/73, 127/73, 128/ 73, 129/73, 130/73, 131/73, 132/73 dan 133/73 bagi, Lot 5988, 5989, 5999, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6004, 6005, 6006, 6007, 6008, 6009, 6010, 6011 semua Ulu Bernam disimpan dalam tempoh tujuh hari dari tarikh perintah ini diserah.

By the time the said order was made the said 14 subdivided lots had already been transferred by the defendant to the interveners, the present appellants. By the summons in chambers dated 12 August 1992, the appellant applied to intervene in the suit and to set aside that part of the said order that directed the appropriate Land Administrator to enter a Registrar's caveat in respect of the said 14 subdivided lots. The application to intervene was allowed but the application to set aside the order was dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal.

There is only one issue before us, namely, whether the High Court has the power or jurisdiction to direct the Registrar or any Land Administrator to enter a Registrar's caveat in respect of any land.

It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the Court has that power under s. 417(1) of the National Land Code 1965 ('the Code') which reads as follows:

417.

General authority of the Court.

(1) The Court or a Judge may by order direct the Registrar or any Land Administrator to do all such things as may be necessary to give effect to any judgment or order given or made in any proceedings relating to land, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar or Land Administrator to comply with the order forthwith.

In support, the learned Counsel cited the following authorities:

1. Seet Soh Ngoh V. Venkateswara Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [1975]

2. A.R. PL Palaniappa Chettiar v. PL. AR Letchumanan Chettiar & Anor. [1982] 1 MLJ 98

3.Boonsom Boonyanit V. Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 45

In Seet Soh Ngoh, Chang Min Tat J (as he then was) said:

Mr. Sri Ram, however, argued that on a proper reading of s. 319 of the National Land Code dealing with a Registrar's caveat, the Registrar was the only person who could decide whether to enter his caveat.

His contention was that there was no power in anyone, not even the Court, to order him to do so.