Faiza Tamby Chik H:

Dalam kes ini si plaintif melalui pernyataan Tututannya bertarikh 6 Ogos 1990 telah memohon:

(1) Jumlah wang sebanyak RM31,082.03 berserta faedah dan kadar bunga akan ditetapkan menurut pandangan Mahkamah sekiranya adil yang akan bermula dari 14 September 1982. (2) Perisytiharan bahawa plaintif telah mengundurkan diri dari perkongsian firma defendan di mana sejumlah hutang yang harus dibayar kepada pihak plaintif adalah berdasarkan syer plaintif iaitu sebanyak 3/22 daripada modal dan keuntungan perkongsian. (3) Perintah Mahkamah untuk syer plaintif dinilaikan sehingga 22 Jun 1990. (4) Untuk mencapai tujuan permohonan B(2) dan (3) di atas satu perintah bahawa:

(a) semua keperluan akaun dan segala siasatan haruslah diambil dan dibuat; (b) perintah untuk menjual harta dan nama baik pihak defendan; (c) perisytiharan bahawa baki daripada hasil jualan selepas pembayaran pembelian mestilah dibahagikan di antara rakan kongsi dan 3/22 per sen itu mestilah dibayar kepada plaintif;

Pada permulaannya biarlah membincangkan dahulu perintah ikatan dokumen yang dipersetujui (Agreed Bundle of Documents) dan kedudukannya dalam sesuatu perbicaraan sivil.Berkaitan dengan Nota-nota Amalan yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak mahkamah dari masa kesemasa dalam mengawal prosidur perbicaraan dimahkamah, adalah kena pada tempatnya bagi saya memetik hanya alasan penghakiman Shankar H. dalam kes Chong Khee Sang lwn.Pang Ah Chee[1983] 2 MLRH 299, [1984] 1 MLJ 377 pada halaman 382 - 383 mengenai ikatan yang dipersetujui di mana beliau berkata:

This particular point seems to have caused a great deal of trouble to practitioners.It may be useful therefore to include in his judgment a reference to the various Practice Notes which have from time to time been issued by the Registrar of the High Court in Malaya.Practice Note No. 1 of 1969 provided for an agreed bundle of documents and an agreed statement of facts to be filed in running down cases and listed the minimal requirements of each.After the Rules of the Supreme Court 1957 came into force another Practice Note No. 3 of 1970 was issued requiring an agreed bundle of documents and a statement of agreed facts to be filed.This particular Practice Note referred to RSC O. 32 and qualified the decision of Sharma J. earlier referred to. It would appear to bear emphasis that this particular Practice Note also seems to have been made applicable to the Sessions Court and since it does not appear to have been repealed it applied to the conduct of the present action.An amendment to Practice Note 3 of 1970 was made by Practice Note 1 of 1977.In addition to an agreed bundle of documents a bundle of documents not agreed was also required to be filed.

Then followed Practice Note 2 of 1977 issued on 8 February 1977.Detailed instructions were given in this note with close reference to O. 30 r. 1, O. 31 r. 13, and rr. 1, 2, 4 ,8 and 11.

To clarify the position the note expressly states:

It will make for willing compliance if solicitors and counsels consider or realise that agreeing on documents implies merely dispensation with proof of their existence or execution and does not dispense with proof of the averments or allegations therein, unless agreed to on the pleadings or in other admissions.

A further Practice Note 4 of 1977 was also issued which appears to have done away with the necessity of filing a bundle of documents not agreed.

All these practice notes designed to protect counsel in the preparation of cases and to save time and expense of all concerned, have over the years undoubteldy been honoured more in their breach rather in their observance.

Dapat diperhatikan di atas menurut Nota Amalan No. 2/77 bahawa persetujuan mengenai dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan menandakan semata-mata pengecualian daripada membuktikan kewujudan atau penyempurnaan sesuatu dokumen itu dan ianya tidaklah mengetepikan syarat membuktikan sesuatu penegasan atau pengataan didalamnya melainkan telah dipersetujui d