Tengku Baharudin Shah JCA:

[1] We heard these related appeals against the decision of the learned judge of the High Court ordering the production for inspection by the respondents of various documents alleged to be in the possession, custody or power of the appellants who were the defendants in the case being tried before him in the Court below. We allowed both appeals and set aside orders of the learned judge allowing discovery in the midst of the trial which had already begun when the applications were made. We now state our reasons for so deciding.

BACKGROUND

[2] The first and third appellants instituted the KL High Court Civil Suit No D4-22-34 of 1995 ('the D4 action') against the first respondent claiming various reliefs for alleged defamation, malicious prosecution and unlawful interference with their trade and business as responsible dealers of a particular brand of a chinese medicinel wine ('the said Chinese wine'). Some two years later the respondents filed KL Civil Suit No D1-22-400 of 1997 ('the D1 action') against all the appellants for alleged passing off and infringement of the respondents proprietary rights by distributing and selling counterfeit said Chinese w