The suit must establish reasonable cause and compliance with statutory requirements to proceed; otherwise, it is dismissed as frivolous.

[1] This suit concerns Sri Maha Mariamman Temple (Temple) which is erected on part of a piece of land held under Grant No 284076 Lot No 81278, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor (Land).

[2] The named ten plaintiffs filed this action (This Suit) on behalf of themselves and as the representatives for 40 other plaintiffs named in Appendix A to the Writ of This Suit (plaintiffs).

[3] The parties in This Suit, according to the Statement of Claim (SOC), are as follows:

(1) the plaintiffs are the devotees of the Temple;

(2) the 1st defendant (1st defendant) is the purported Chairman of the Management Body of the Temple (Management Body);

(3) the 2nd defendant company (2nd defendant), a developer of real property, is the previous registered proprietor of the Land;

(4) the 3rd defendant (3rd defendant) is the Selangor State Director of Town and Country Planning;

(5) the 4th defendant (4th defendant) is the Selangor State Government. It is to be noted under s 16(2) of the National Land Code ( NLC ) that any action "relating to land in which it is sought to establish any liability' on the part of the "State Authority' (defined in s 5 ) of Selangor "shall' be brought against the Selangor State Director of Lands and Mines. Learned Senior Federal Counsel (who appeared for the 4th defendant) did not raise any objection regarding the breach of s 16(2) and consequently, such a breach is immaterial - please see Mohd Noor J's (as he then was) judgment in the High Court in Sagong Tasi & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors, 2002 MarsdenLR 2292 ;

(6) the 5th defendant company (5th defendant) is the present registered owner of the Land;

(7) the 6th defendant (6th defendant), deceased, is the previous trustee of the Temple and a party to the consent judgment pronounced on 11 March 2014 by Wan Arfah binti Wan Ibrahim J [Consent Judgment (11 March 2014)] in Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No: MT1-21-353-1996 (1996 Suit); and

(8) the 7th defendant (7th defendant) was the former head of a "temporary committee" which previously managed the Temple.

[4] In This Suit, the plaintiffs claim as follows, among others:

(1) the Temple was built in 1880s by the plaintiffs' ancestors when they worked for the "Seafield Rubber Estate";

(2) on 16 August 2005, the Selangor State Executive Committee (State EXCO) had "confirmed" that the Temple would remain on the Land (Alleged State EXCO's Decision);

(3) there was a conspiracy between the 1st and 5th defendants to, among others, demolish the Temple and obtain vacant possession of the Land by fraud, unlawful and/or improper means (Alleged Conspiracy). Pursuant to the Allleged Conspiracy, among others:

(a) the Consent Judgment (11 March 2014) was recorded; and

(b) the 1st and 5th defendants had entered into an agreement dated 8 October 2016 to, among others, relocate the Temple [Agreement (8 October 2016)];

(4) the 1st defendant had:

(a) breached his duties owed by him as a trustee and fiduciary to the Temple; and

(b) filed false documents and accounts on behalf of the Management Body with the Registrar of Societies (ROS);

(5) the Consent Judgment (11 March 2014) is invalid and should be set aside pursuant to s 44 of the Evidence Act 1950 ( EA );

(6) the Consent Judgment (11 March 2014) has been breached by:

(a) the 5th defendant; and

(b) the 3rd and 4th defendants when "Site A" [the location described in Annex A1 to the Consent Judgment (11 March 2014) to which the Temple is to be built and relocated] has not been gazetted as a place of worship;

(7) reliance was placed on Hindu customary law and legitimate expectation of the Temple's devotees (Devotees); and

(8) the following remedies, among others, have been sought:

(a) an interlocutory