Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

This is an appeal by Parasuraman a/l Kuppan (appellant) against the decision of the Alor Setar High Court given on 4 May 1997 whereby pursuant to an application by Sazali bin Mohd Akhir and Ismail bin Mat Senawi (respondents) by way of a notice to produce (encl 72), the learned judge ordered (p. 37 of the appeal record):

(i) that subject to (ii) below, the request for documents under items (1), (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) be allowed; and

(ii) that only the documents/statements on the deposit and interest earned until the date of withdrawal for purpose of paying into court be produced.

The application is purportedly made pursuant to O. 24 r. 12 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC").

In addition thereto, for the purpose of O. 42 r. 6(1) of RHC the learned judge on 6 July 1997 ordered the solicitors for the appellant to comply with the order of court of 4 May 1997 in respect of the notice to produce (encl 72) within thirty days of the service of the said order.

On the oral complaint of counsel for the respondents, the learned judge also found that the act of Encik Francis Nathar, counsel/solicitor for the appellant, amounted to misconduct within the meaning of s. 94(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA") and thereby directed his Deputy Registrar to serve a copy of his judgment and do pursuant to s. 99(2) of the LPA refer Encik Francis Nathar to the Disciplinary Board set up under the LPA.

Before considering the issue before us, it would be useful to set out the background facts that led to the orders made by the learned judge.

Background Facts

The appellant was the second plaintiff in the Sessions Court at Jitra. He had successfully sued the respondents as defendants in the Sessions Court for damages in a running-down case. The learned Sessions Court judge granted an award of RM25,000 for general damages, RM720 for special damages and costs of RM4,797.60. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellant appealed to the High Court.

In the High Court, Mohamed Noor Abdullah JC (as he then was) allowed the appeal and gave the following awards to the appellant:

(a) RM33,000 for general damages.

(b) RM6,000 for hip dislocation.

(c) RM8,000 for corrective surgery.

(d) RM5,000 for loss of earning capacity.

(c) RM9,240 for pre trial loss of income.

The respondents in turn, through their solicitors, Tetuan Syarikat Visva, filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court vide Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04-32-93.

Pending the determination of Civil Appeal No 04-32-93 by the Supreme Court (subsequently known as the Federal Court), the respondents filed an application for stay of execution of the High Court judgment (encl. 40). The application was heard by Hishamudin Yunus J on 3 December 1994 and it was allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the total sum due under the High Court judgment be paid to Tetuan Francis Nathar & Co, solicitors for the appellant;

(ii) that Tetuan Francis Nathar & Co. be allowed to disburse to the appellant, the sum due to the appellant under the Sessions Court judgment;

(iii)that the balance, after disbursement to the appellant under (ii), be held by Tetuan Francis Nathar & Co. as stakeholders until the final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 04-32-93; and

(iv) pending the disposal of Civil Appeal No: 04-32-93, this sum of money (disputed amount) was to be kept in a fixed deposit account as part of the client's account to be disbursed together with the interest earned to whichever party the Supreme Court declares to be entitled.

The disputed amount of RM46,707.66 was sent direct to Tetuan Francis Nathar & Co. solicitors for the appellant, by South East Asia Insurance Berhad, the insurance company which had to indemnify the respondents on 20 April 1995 (p. 184 of the appeal record).

The issue in this appeal really is centred on the result of Civil Appeal No. 04-32-93 in the Federal Court vis-a-vis condition (iv) imposed by the learne