Abdul Malik Ishak JC:

[1] This is an application by the plaintiff for an order of committal against the first defendant for contempt of Court.

[2] The facts of the case may be stated, briefly, as follows. On 5 March 1993, the plaintiff made an ex-parte application for an order that the defendants by their servants or agents or otherwise be restrained, inter alia, from entering or trespassing upon a piece of land comprised in HS(D) LM 4277-4311, PT 2053- 2007 (previously known as EMR 1133, Lot 76), Mukim Sungai Tinggi, in the district of Larut and Matang (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 76"). The injunction order that was sought for, was duly obtained on the same day ("the Court Order"). The Court Order was served personally to the first defendant by the plaintiff accompanied by Constable 99810 Muniandy on 29 June 1993 at about 2.45 pm at No 5, Lorong 14, Aulong, Taiping (see encl 25). Since the first defendant refused to accept service, the Court Order was left at the said premises.

[3] The terms of the Court Order, in so far as relevant to the present proceedings, are as follows:

ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa banglo dan kilang di atas HS(D) LM 4277-4311, PT 2053-2087 (dahulu dikenali sebagai EMR 1133 Lot 76) Mukim Sungai Tinggi, Daerah Larut Matang yang dibina oleh defendan-defendan tanpa izin atau autoriti daripada plaintiff adalah sebahagian "tanah" dan telah terletak hak kepada plaintiff di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1956.

ADALAH JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa plaintiff diberi possessi bangunan-bangunan di atas lot tersebut.

ADALAH JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa defendan-defendan secara sendiri dan/ atau agen/pengkhidmat atau secara bagaimanapun ditahan dari memasuki atau melintasi lot tersebut.

ADALAH JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa plaintif dibenarkan untuk memecah dan memasuki tanah Lot 76.

[4] The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant had committed breaches of the terms of the Court Order. The breaches complained of are set out below:

(1) On 11 March 1993 at 8.30 pm, the first defendant fastened the gate that fenced the premises of Lot 76 with a brand new lock. Having done so, the first defendant then lodged a police report vide Trong report 101/93 on 12 March 1993 at 7.20 pm as per exhibit "S22".

(2) On 18 April 1993 at 12.40 pm., the first defendant entered Lot 76 and took photographs without the permission or without the consent of the plaintiff. On the same day at 12.50 pm., the first defendant lodged a police report vide Trong report 174/93 as per exhibit "S23".

(3) Being dissatisfied with the actions of the first defendant, the plaintiff, with full knowledge that the first defendant had violated the Court Order, lodged a police report vide Trong report 175/93 on 18 April 1993 at 1.30 pm. as per exhibit "S24". In his police report, the plaintiff adverted to the trespass by the first defendant in clear contravention of the Court Order.

(4) It was averred in the plaintiff's affidavit that what the first defendant did was done in bad faith. Both the police reports 101/93 and 174/93 re- ferred to Lot 78 of which both the defendants were the registered proprietors. But Lot 78 is an empty piece of land without fixtures, that is, without a single building nor is it fenced up. It was averred that the first defendant was still under a misconception that Lot 76 was his notwithstanding the Court Order. It was the plaintiff's case that the first defendant practised deception and had deceived not only the police but also this Court by referring to Lot 76 as Lot 78.

(5) In consequence of the deception and confusion caused by the first defendant, the police and the land officer from the Taiping land office visited the site and they confirmed that the lands referred to in the police reports 101/9, 174/93 and 175/93 related to Lot 76. A police report to this effect was also lodged on 13 May 1993 vide Trong report 210/93 as per exhibit "S25". It was the plaintiff's case as can be seen in Trong report 210/93 that the first defendant had lodged false po