Mohd Hishamudin Yunus J:

In this case, the trial was part heard by Rekhraj J on 19 and 20 March 2001. Before him two witnesses (PW1 and PW2) of the plaintiff completed their testimonies. The trial was then adjourned to 30 July 2001 for the continued hearing of the plaintiff's case. However, on 30 July the case was further adjourned without any hearing as the judge was not well. It was adjourned to 18 and 19 October 2001, but for some reason the trial did not proceed on these dates. Thereafter, Rekhraj J retired.

When the case came for mentioned before me on 1 March 2002 to fix a date for the continued hearing suitable to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (default judgment had previously already been entered against the 1st defendant), the parties raised the issue as to whether I should hear the case de novo or whether I should continue with the trial from the stage where Rekhraj J left before he retired.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that I should continue with the trial from the stage where Rekhraj J left. The second defendant, however, argued that I ought to hear the case de novo.

Accordingly, I fixed 24 June 2002 for the parties to submit on the issue.

On