Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] There is only one issue in this appeal. It is whether the plaintiff firm (the appellant before us) lacks standing to prosecute the action it instituted against the defendants (respondents before us). The judge in the court below resolved that issue against the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. Here is the factual matrix out of which the issue arises.

[2] The plaintiff had 7 partners. They are Yee Fook Shin, Yong Kat Keong, Thein Hong Teck, Yee Fook Choy, Yee Chong Khoon, Yee Chang Man and Syed Kharul Azhar bin Syed Talib. The plaintiff was the registered holder of a mining certificate No. 1/113 in respect of the land held under Lot 1986, Sungai Kermoi in the State of Pahang. The mining certificate was issued by the State on 28 February 1996.

[3] On or about 15 December 1998 a sublease of the mining land in question was registered in the Kuala Lipis land office in favour of the first defendant. Later, the first defendant transferred the sublease to the second defendant. That transfer was registered.

[4] On 7 April 2000, the plaintiff firm took out an originating summons against the first defendant. It sought two declarations and other consequential relief. The declarations claimed are in the following terms:

(i) a declaration that the registration of the sub-lease on the piece of land held under mining certificate 1/13 in favour of the first defendant, Selinsing Mining Sdn Bhd, vide presentation no. 8/98 Volume 1 Folio 35 on 15 December 1998 is invalid, null and void;

(ii) a declaration that the registration of the transfer of the sub-lease on the piece of land held under mining certificate 1/113 from the first defendant, Selinsing Mining Sdn Bhd to the second defendant, Asian Mining Services Sdn Bhd is invalid, null and void.

[5] Following this, on 29 August 2000, the plaintiff firm obtained an interim injunction to secure the status quo until the outcome of the action. The order restrained the defendants from:

(i) being on or remaining or entering upon the land in question; or

(ii) working on the land and removing any material from it; and

(iii) disposing or dealing with the sublease in question.

[6] Pending the hearing of the main action, certain events occurred which had an overriding effect on the action. On 9 July 2003 Yee Chang Man (a partner of the plaintiff firm) was adjudicated a bankrupt. About two years later, on 19 April 2005, another partner Syed Kharul Azhar bin Syed Talib was also adjudged a bankrupt. In the meantime, on 28 October 2000, the plaintiff's business registration expired. In an attempt to meet the difficulty in which the appellant firm found itself the partners of the plaintiff firm including the bankrupt Yee Chang Man purported to register a second firm with the same name as the plaintiff. This happened on 23 August 2004. Later, on 24 October 2005, the Registrar of Businesses terminated the appellant's registration pursuant to s. 5C(2) of the Registration of Businesses Act 1956 (Revised 1978) ("the Act") on the grounds that one of the partners in the appellant firm was a bankrupt and the firm was no longer carrying on its business.

[7] Relying on the post-suit events, the respondents applied to strike out the appellant's action. The learned judge granted that application on 15 November 2005. With that the injunction of 29 August 2000 fell to the ground. It is plain _ and there is no quarrel about this - that the learned judge struck out the action on the ground that the plaintiff firm lacked standing to carry on with the action by reason of revocation of its business registration following the bankruptcy of two of its partners.

[8] On 9 January 2006 the appellant, having given notice of appeal, moved this court on an urgent basis for interim relief under s. 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. That motion came up for hearing on 18 January 2006 and was adjourned to 6 March 2006. On the adjourned date we proceeded to treat the motion for interim relief as the appeal pro