Vincent Ng Kim Khoay J:

This was an application under Notis Usul (Encl.73) by the defendant for the order for sale dated 27 May 91 (Encl.41), of a piece of land situated in SPK 5541 No. Lot 2468 Mukim Sungai Petani, Kedah, made pursuant to s 256 of National Land Code (the Code) for the recovery of RM7,413,114.17 due and outstanding as at 27 May 91 from the defendant to the plaintiff, to be set aside with costs.The application was based on the solitary ground that the High Court was not clothed with jurisdiction to make an order for sale in respect of a Mukim title.

It was not disputed that:

(a) The subject matter of the order for sale concerned a Mukim or Land Office title which fell within the jurisdiction of the Kuala Muda District land administrator.

(b) The said order for sale made by the High Court was made under s 256 of the Code .

(c) This order was granted on 27 May 91 after the Court had heard both parties (who were then represented by Counsel) in which the point concerning its lack of jurisdiction was not taken by the defendant, until now, over 3 years later.

(d) Though the defendant had appealed to the Supreme Court against the order for sale it was not grounded on the question of jurisdiction and that appeal was struck off for want of prosecution.

This matter, which was argued before me on 10 October 94 exclusively concerns my deliberation on the following issues in law:-

The first issue: Whether the High Court is clothed with co-ordinate jurisdiction under s 260 of the National Land Code (the Code) or any jurisdiction under s 256 of the Code , to make an order for sale in respect of a "Land Office title or the form of qualified title corresponding to Land Office title.

s 260(1) and (2) reads:

(1) This section applies to land held under-

(a) Land Office title, or

(b) the form of qualified title corresponding to Land Office title, and to any lease of any such land.

(2) Any application for an order for sale under this Chapter by a chargee of any such land or lease shall be made to the Land Administrator in Form 16G.

Whereas, s 256(1) and (2) states:

(1) This section applies to land held under-

(a) Registry title, or

(b) the form of qualified title corresponding to Registry title, and to any lease of any such land.

(2) Any application for an order for sale under this Chapter by a chargee of any such land or lease shall be made to the Court in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of any law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.

Under s 5 of the Code , "Court" means the High Court of Malaya.

On the approach to take on interpretation of the provisions of the National Land Code I am guided by the dicta of Raja Azlan Shah, L.P. (as he then was) in Land Executive Committee of Federal Territory v. Syarikat Harper Gilfillan Bhd [1981] 1 M.L.J. 237, who had this to say:

As a general rule where a statute creates a new obligation and provides a special mode of enforcing it, no other Court has jurisdiction to enforce that obligation.

The case generally referred to, as establishing that rule is Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] A.C. 387. We quote from the speech of the Earl of Halsbury L.C.:

The principle that where a specific remedy is given by a Statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a remedy of any other form of remedy than that given by the Statute, is one which is very familiar and which runs through the law. I think Lord Tenterden accurately states the principle in the case of Doe v. Bridges (1 B. & Ad., 847, at p. 859). He says: 'where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, we take it to be a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.' The words which the learned Judge, Lord Tenterden, uses there appear to be strictly applicable to this case.The obligation which is created by this Statute is an obligation which is created by the Statute and by the Statute alone.

It is no