Compliance with procedural rules for appeals is vital for maintaining the integrity of legal processes, as clarified by established precedents.

In this decision the appellant and the respondent for convenience are to be referred to respectively as the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff took up a summons in the Sessions Court at Kemaman against the defendant for negligence. On 14 September 1998 the action was set down for mention to determine the date of the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff, represented by Messrs. Mahindar & Co. from Kuantan, Pahang, requested the assistance of a local counsel from Messrs. V.P. Nathan to mention the case on its behalf on that day before the Sessions Court to get the date of the hearing of the action. The solicitors for the plaintiff were subsequently informed by the solicitor who mentioned on their behalf that the hearing of the action had been fixed for 8 February 1999. However, on 8 February 1999 when the counsel for the plaintiff attended Court for the intended hearing he discovered that the action was not on the cause list for the day. Upon inquiries made with the Court registry, it was informed that the matter was actually fixed for hearing on 11 September 1998 and as the parties did not appear on that day, the suit of the plaintiff had been struck off by the Court.

Following that, the plaintiff filed in the Kemaman Sessions Court an application for the action to be reinstated. Having heard the application, the Court on 27 June 1999 disallowed it. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff to the judge in chambers against the said decision of the subordinate Court.

In this appeal which was made pursuant to Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 , O.49 ("the SCR 1980"), the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal with the registry of the Sessions Court and not with the registry of the High Court. Subsequently the plaintiff filed and served its Petition of Appeal. In the said Petition of Appeal it included other matters than those required by O. 49 r. 6(3) of the SCR 1980 as evidenced in the index from item 6 to item 16 therein.

At the inception of the hearing of this appeal of the plaintiff the defendant raised two preliminary objections. They are that the plaintiff as an appellant should have filed its notice of appeal in the registry of the High Court as so required by O. 49 r. 6(2) of the SCR 1980. Secondly, the intended appeal by the plaintiff being one in respect of a decision made by the subordinate Court other than a decision made after trial which is governed by O. 49 r. 6 of the SCR 1980, the record of appeal of the plaintiff should not contain other matters than that allowed by O. 49 r. 6(3) of the SCR 1980. As the plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of the said r. 6(2) and (3), there is no proper appeal brought before this Court and therefore, it ought to be dismissed.

Order 49 r. 6 of the SCR 1980 states as follows:

(2) The appeal shall be brought by filing a notice of appeal in Form 140 within 14 days from the day on which the decision was pronounced, and serving a copy of the notice on every other party to the proceedings within the time limited for the filing of appeal to the Registrar of the High Court.

(3) Within three weeks after the filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file the record of appeal in the High Court and the record shall contain copies of -

(a) the application for the decision;

(b) the statement of claim, and where defence has been filed, the statement of defence;

(c) all affidavits filed in support of or in opposition to the application;

(d) the decision appealed from,

but shall not include the notes of evidence, the grounds of judgment or any memorandum of appeal. (emphasis added).

The first issue raised in the objection is a serious one. If the contention of the defendant is correct, there is in fact no appeal being brought before this Court over the decision of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the plaintiff's application for the reinstatement of its suit against the de