Introduction

On 6 August 1998 the parties magnanimously agreed that this judgment would bind ten (10) other originating summonses, namely:

(1) OS 24-275-1998(1) where the defendants were Gopal a/l Panikar and nine others;

(2) OS 24-276-1998(1) where the defendants were Manisvaram a/l Subramaniam and two others;

(3) OS 24-277-1998(1) where the defendants were Licmy a/p R. Sinna and four others;

(4) OS 24-279-1998(1) where the defendants were Panickiraji a/l Gopal and four others;

(5) OS 24-278-1998(1) where the defendants were Koonnusagaran a/l Murugan and five others;

(6) OS 24-488-1998(1) where the defendants were Ravindran a/l Raman and nine others;

(7) OS 24-492-1998(1) where the defendants were Narayenna Moorthy a/l Thaliappan and eight others;

(8) OS 24-693-1998(1) where the defendants were Ambok Sulung bin Hj. Ambok Attak and two others;

(9) OS 24-694-1998(1) where the defendants were Abdul Rahim bin Ayub and two others; and

(10) OS 24-695-1998(1) where the defendants were Azhar bin Ahmad and another.

Subsequent affidavits filed by the defendants revealed that the facts in the last three cases, namely: (1) OS 24-693-1998(1);

(2) OS 24-694-1998(1); and

(3) OS 24-695-1998(1).

were different from the facts of the present case and on 14 September 1998 the parties agreed that these three cases were to be heard separately by this court on 27 November 1998, 28 November 1998 and 30 November 1998 respectively. After hearing submissions on those dates, this court granted order in terms on 30 November 1998.

In regard to OS 24-492-1998(1) where the defendants were Narayenna Moorthy a/l Thaliappan and eight others, the parties had agreed on 6 August 1998 that the decision in the present case would be binding on them. In actual fact, order in terms on 19 May 1998 had already been granted in the absence of the defendants in OS 24-492-1998(1) for the decision of the present case to bind them. The defendants' in OS 24-492-1998(1) quickly applied for a stay and to set aside the order of this court dated 19 May 1998 as seen in encl. 12 which was fixed for hearing on 9 October 1998. On that date after hearing submissions from the counsels, this court dismissed the defendants' application in encl. 12 prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) with costs. The defendants must have been contented with the decision of this court for they did not lodge an appeal against it.

On 25 February 1999, the court convened to hear arguments in relation to OS 24-486-1998(1) where the defendants were Orang-orang yang menduduki rumah yang ditanda sebagai "A5" dan didirikan atas sebahagian tanah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik CT 2733 Lot 2103, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor. On that date, the parties agreed that the decision of the present case would bind OS 24-486-1998(1) and an order in terms were recorded on 5 April 1999.

To sum up and by way of a summary, the following seven cases are bound by the decision in the present case:

(a) OS 24-275-1998(1).

(b) OS 24-276-1998(1).

(c) OS 24-277-1998(1).

(d) OS 24-279-1998(1).

(e) OS 24-278-1998(1).

(f) OS 24-488-1998(1).

(g) OS 24-486-1998(1).

For originating summonses referred to in items (a) to (f) of the above, the orders for vacant possessions were recorded on 17 March 1999. In regard to the originating summons referred to in item (g) of the above, an order for vacant possession was recorded on 5 April 1999.

The plaintiff's application under this originating summons can be seen in encl. 3 and it was, inter alia, for vacant possession of the house marked as "C31" erected on a portion of the land held under CT 2733 Lot 2103 Mukim Plentong, district of Johor Bahru, State of Johore ("property"). The property had an acreage of 53 acres 3 roods 20 poles. Enclosure 3 too contained a prayer that the defendants to vacate the house from the said property within 14 days from the date of the order pursuant to the application in this originating summons. The plaintiff too prayed for