Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

The first defendant, namely, Perwira Affin Bank Berhad (formerly known as Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Berhad), had applied by way of a summons in chambers in encl. 47 to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim in encl. 31 under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980("RHC"). To be precise, encl. 47 was worded in this way:

(1) that the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim herein be struck out and the action herein against the First Defendant be dismissed on the grounds that the Amended Statement of Claim:

(a) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) is prejudicial and embarrassing; or

(c) it is an abuse of the process of this Court;

under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court, 1980and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court;

(2) such further or consequential orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit or necessary; and

(3)that the plaintiff do forthwith pay the first Defendant its costs of and occasioned by this action including the costs of this application.

and the grounds in support were said to be (see encl. 47 thereof):

The grounds of the application are that this Honourable Court is functus officioand the issues raised are res judicataand also on the further grounds as stated in the Affidavit of YEO KHAY ANN filed herein.

That summons in chambers in encl. 47 was supported by an affidavit of Yeo Khay Ann that was affirmed on 25 November 1999 and filed on the next day as seen in encl. 44. By way of a reply the plaintiff affirmed an affidavit on 22 December 1999 which was filed on the next day as seen in encl. 56.

The third to the fifteen defendants affirmed an affidavit in reply on 20 January 2000 as seen in encl. 57 which was in turn filed on the next day. Enclosure 57 was styled as the "intervener's reply affidavit (3rd to 15th defendants)" and it replied to two matters. The first was in relation to the plaintiff's application for summary judgment while the second relates to the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim. Incidentally, the third to the fifteen defendants filed their statement of defence on 21 January 2000 as seen in encl. 58. That statement of defence in encl. 58 was dated 19 January 2000.

By way of encl. 82 which was dated 10 August 2000, the third to the fifteen defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim in encl. 31. In encl. 82, the third to the fifteen defendants sought for the following prayers:

(1) that the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim herein be struck out and the action herein against the 3rd to 15th Defendants be dismissed on the grounds that the Amended Statement of Claim:

(a)is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(b)is prejudicial and embarrassing; or

(c)it is an abuse of the process of this court;

under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court, 1980and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court;

(2)such further or consequential orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit or necessary; and

(3)that the plaintiff do forthwith pay the 3rd to 15th Defendants their costs of and occasioned by this action including the costs of this application.

and on the following grounds:

The grounds of the application are that this Honourable Court is functus officiothat is the court has no jurisdiction to decide on the issues in the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and the issues raised are res judicatathat is the plaintiff is estopped from further raising any issue pertaining to the charges and other interests lodged (on) the same subject land videthe five (5) Master titles hereinafter set out and also on the further grounds as stated in the Affidavit in support of GOON GOOI CHENG (f) filed herein.

Enclosure 82 was supported by an affidavit styled as an "affidavit in support" of the third defendant by the name of Goon Gooi Cheng (f) as seen in encl. 81 which was dated 9 August 2000 and filed on the next day. The plaintiff responded to en