The court upheld the validity of the order for sale, emphasizing the necessity for proper valuation and procedural adherence, dismissing claims of bad faith and fraud due to lack of evidence.

Introduction

[1] This is our unanimous decision for this appeal against the learned High Court Judge's decision in dismissing the Amended Originating Summons to, inter alia, set aside an Order for sale and/or in the alternative, an order for damages to be made in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent.

[2] After considering Counsels' full submission at great length, both oral and written, we dismissed the appeal.

[3] We provide our reasons herein below.

Agreed Background Facts

[4] The common agreed background facts submitted by parties in their submissions and the ground of judgment by the learned High Court Judge are condensed and set out below.

[5] The Appellant had procured two (2) business loans from the Respondent secured by way of a third party charge over a property belonging to the Appellant.

[6] To facilitate part of the Charge process, the property was valued by the valuer, Kumpulan Nilai Sdn Bhd, on 24 June 2011 at market value (MV) RM650,000.00 and the forced sale value (FSV) at RM488,000.00.

[7] The charge dated 7 September 2011 bearing the presentation No 761/2011 over the said property was filed in the land office.

[8] The borrower however defaulted in the repayments for the loan to the Respondent.

[9] An order for sale of the said property was then obtained by the Respondent on 28 August 2017 to recover the outstanding loan.

[10] Directions to sell the said property was duly obtained on the 25 June 2018.

[11] The said property was valued by the Respondent's valuer, Messrs W.M Malik & Kamaruzaman at a market value of RM350,000.00 and a forced sale value of RM250,000.00.

[12] Amid the auction, there were negotiations between the Appellant and Respondent to redeem the said property. One of the terms proposed by the Respondent was that the Appellant had to pay RM100,000.00 and to bear the auctioneers and valuation fees of RM3,000.00 to which the Appellant had agreed and complied with. The auction was then called off.

[13] Later, the Appellant informed the Respondent that the Appellant had found a buyer for Appellant's property in Kedah and the Appellant would utilize part of the proceeds to redeem the said property.

[14] However, no final settlement was made by the Appellant. The Respondent filed a fresh application on 8 October 2018 to obtain directions to proceed with the order for sale.

[15] The auction was held on 21 November 2018 and a successful bidder, Mohd Fauzi Ibrahim, completed and signed the Contract of Sale. The full purchase price of RM350,000.00 was paid to the Respondent.

[16] The dispute between the Appellant and Respondent then began by the Appellant's Amended Originating Summons in the High Court to seek for, inter alia:

(a) A declaration that the order dated 19 October 2018 was invalid;

(b) A declaration that the order dated 16 April 2018 was invalid and therefore liable to be set aside;

(c) An Order dated 19 October 2018 be set aside;

(d) Further and in the alternative, the Respondent be ordered to pay the Appellant the sum of RM360,000.00 being the differential sum of the actual market value and the auctioned value.

The High Court's Decision

[17] The learned High Court Judge dismissed the Appellant's application premised on the following reasonings.

[18] To sum up, the learned Judge found that:

(i) The Appellant's valuer's report had not detailed or provided reasons for its valuation of the said property as compared to the Respondent's valuation report;

(ii) There was no mala fide conduct on the part of