Vincent Ng J:

Despite the relatively paltry amount involved, the saga of this contest between the two abovenamed characters has persisted to vex various judges in various courts for well over 15 years past. I thought I would have the privilege of seeing the closing chapter of this saga, but that was not to be; as with this appeal against my decision on 12 December 2001, this saga is ill-willed to continue, as though the courts have nothing better to engage their minds on. I regret to have to observe that this was in part brought about by the manner in which the judgment creditor's (JC's) solicitors have handled the various and varied execution processes. Considering the chequered track record of the parties herein I am fairly certain that after a further umpteen years from now, God willing (in terms of the gift of tenacious genes), the eventual question of costs incurred in the whole saga would be fought out in similar tenacious style at all levels of the courts ad infinitumand ad nauseum. My sympathies are with the JC. But as the bounden duty that flows from a judge's oath of office is to decide a case, not viscerally or through sheer flexing of judicial muscle or fine choice of words, but on the basis of arguably impartial and rigorous analysis of the law, sympathy is the only extraneous outcome of the case that this court could legitimately impart. When, to satisfy my nagging curiosity, I enquired as to whether they have aided and abetted pettifogging the current solicitors on both sides of the divide happily assured me that they have been adequately paid for their services.

On 22 September 1986 the JC and judgment debtor (JD) herein entered a consent judgment in the sum of RM35,632 in a matter pertaining to sale of land in Suit No. F27 of 1979. The consent judgment was recorded before Siti Norma Yaacob, J (as she then was). Unfortunately, the consensual nature of the judgment was destined not to translate to action when it came to paying even a dollar to account of the judgment sum. Based on the consent judgment, the JC instituted bankruptcy proceedings under Bankruptcy No: D4-29-1968-91. Whilst the bankruptcy proceedings was in progress, JD applied by way of a fresh writ No: S1-23-579-93 to set aside the said consent judgment, which resulted in the JC applying under O. 18 r. 19 to strike out the JD's writ. The JC was successful both before the senior assistant registrar and also in the appeal by the JD before KC Vohrah J (as he then was) on 29 August 1995. However, the Bankruptcy Notice No. D4-29-1968-91 was struck off due to bad service. Thereafter, a fresh bankruptcy notice was filed but was promptly withdrawn as the time-period for execution on the consent judgment had then expired. And, in the alternative, the JC applied for and obtained leave to execute on the consent judgment. The said order for leave to execute was dated 26 September 1996. Again the JD tried to set aside the order for leave to execute but the application to set aside was dismissed on 12 March 1997.

Having obtained the leave to execute, the JC then attempted to execute on the consent judgment by way of writ of seizure and Sale No: 37-103-96. This too was withdrawn by a filing of notice of discontinuance dated 26 May 1997 when the JC belatedly discovered to his utter surprise that the assets were not in the ownership of the JD.

Yet again a Bankruptcy Notice No: 29-1311-97 ('the BN') was filed on 6 June 1997 and served on JD on 28 August 1997. However, it was only after service of the BN that the solicitors became aware that the National Registration Identity Card Number (NRIC number) of the JD was wrongly stated in the BN. This led the solicitors to file an ex parteapplication to amend the bankruptcy notice. Order in terms of the ex parteapplication was obtained on 15 October 1997 and an amended bankruptcy notice ('ABN') was filed and issued by the court on 28 November 1997 and served on JD on 5 May 1998 by personal service. At this juncture