JUDGMENT

Aslam Zainuddin JC::

[1] This is an appeal on my refusal to grant leave to commence committal proceedings against the respondent Ranhill SAJ Sdn Bhd under O 52 Rules of 2012. The sole ground relied on was the non-compliance of the respondent to obey an ad interim stay order granted on 19 August 2021, not in this case but in OS No: JA 24-NCVC-136-02-2020. The appellant wanted to cite the respondent for contempt for not restoring water supply to the premises which was cut on the instructions of the landlord account holder. Strangely, the appellant in prayer (c) of his application asks for costs to be paid by Tenaga Nasional Bhd and not the respondent. The said stay order was only for a stay of execution and was not endorsed with a penal provision. On that matter, as an aside, the appellant's solicitors have contempt proceedings instituted against them for trying to put in a penal provision in the said order when none existed. The question arises whether the appellant can use the stay order in OS No JA 24-NCVC-136-02-2020 to initiate a contempt action in a collateral proceeding which is in this case id est JA-24NCVC-476-09-2020 wherein the said respondent is not a party nor wa