ZulkefliAhmad Makinudin J:

This is the first plaintiff'sapplication by way of notice of motion dated 31 October 2002 for committal proceedingsagainst the first and second defendants pursuant to O. 52 r. 2(2) of the Rules ofHigh Court 1980("RHC 1980"). By an order of this court dated 12 April 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as "the said order") the court had ordered inter alia, as follows:

That the Defendants, whether acting by themselves, their servants, officers, employees, representatives or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever until trial of this action or further order be restrained from:

(a) preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their lawful rights as directors of the fourth and fifth defendants and in particular though without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing be restrained from preventing the plaintiffs exercising their lawful right of entry, ingress and egress over the properties of the fourth and fifth defendants and exercising their right to inspect the books and documents of the fourth and fifth defendants.

(b) registering any purported change in the directorship of the fourth and fifth defendants and in particular any purported dismissals of the plaintiffs as directors of the fourth and fifth defendants except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

(c) allotting or issuing any shares in the fourth and fifth defendants or from registering or purporting to register any purported transfer of shares by the plaintiffs in the fourth and fifth defendants except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

(d) removing or giving directions to Citibank NA, 28 Medan Pasar, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Main Office, Overseas Union Bank Ltd, OUB Building, Medan Pasar, Kuala Lumpur, Malayan Banking Berhad, Jalan Yong Shook Lin, Petaling Jaya or any other bank or financial institution to remove any of the plaintiffs as authorised signatories to the accounts of the fourth and fifth defendants with such banks or financial institution except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

(e) appointing any of the defendants or giving instructions to Citibank NA, 28 Medan Pasar, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Main Office, Overseas Union Bank Ltd, OUB Building, Medan Pasar, Kuala Lumpur, Malayan Banking Berhad, Jalan Yong Shook Lin, Petaling Jaya or any other bank or financial institution to appoint any of the defendants as authorised signatories to the accounts of the fourth and fifth defendants with such banks or financial institution except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

(f) opening any new accounts on behalf of the fourth and fifth defendants at any bank or financial institution except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

The said order was endorsed witha notice in Form 87 in accordance with O. 45 r. 7 of the RHC 1980, which statedthat the first and second defendants would be liable to a process of execution forthe purpose of compelling them to obey the same. For the first plaintiff it wassubmitted that a sealed copy of the said order had been served on the first andsecond defendants and also on their solicitors of that time, that is Messrs. Durai& Associates, whose address for service is at 7th & 8th Floors, Bangunan MOCCIS,Jalan Melaka, 50100 Kuala Lumpur.

It is the contention of the firstplaintiff that even though the first and second defendants had personal knowledgeof the said order, the first and second defendants still breached the said order,specifically cls. (b) and (f). The first plaintiff has alleged that the first andsecond defendants had changed the directorship of the fifth defendant company byappointing themselves as directors of the fifth defendant company and had filedvarious Forms 49 on 18 August 2000, 10 November 2000 and 18 September 2000 withthe registrar of companies. The first plaintiff contended that the first and seconddefendant's self-appointment as directors, as well as filing in the relevant process