Mohamed Apandi Ali JC:

Introduction

This is an application by way of summons in chambers by the defendant (Kertas Mahkamah No. 110) for:

1. Bahawa diatas penolakan injunksi interim di sini satu perintah konsekuntial dibuat bagi mengekalkan status quo pihak-pihak di sini iaitu sebelum pihak-pihak di sini menandatangani dan memeterai Perjanjian-Perjanjian yang disebut dalam permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif mengikut alasan penghakiman Yang Arif Hakim Dato' Ramly Bin Mohd. Ali pada 2.4.2000.

2. Mengikut akujanji-akujanji Plaintif-Plaintif seperti yang disebut di dalam Permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif bertarikh 26.9.2001 (Kandungan 4) dan Perintah yang sama tarikh Permohonan bertarikh 1.10.2001 (Kandungan 12) dan Perintah bertarikh 15.10.2001 dan Perintah bertarikh 26.4.2002, satu perintah dibuat bahawa gantirugi Defendan/Pemohon di sini hendaklah ditaksirkan dari 26.9.2001 hingga ke hari ini dan berterusan sehingga Plaintif-Plaintif mengosongkan aset-aset dan tanah-tanah ladang seperti yang disenaraikan di dalam Injunksi Interim.

DAN supaya kos bagi dan yang berlaku bagi permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa.

The matter was heard on 27 June 2002 and continued on 7 July 2003, where I allowed the application and the plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal.

Brief History Of The Application

Before going into the grounds of my decision, it is pertinent to briefly outline the history of the case leading to the application (KM No. 110) by the defendant.

The main action in Civil Suit No. 22-29-2001 was filed by the plaintiffs on 26 September 2001 for an alleged trespass to land which plaintiffs claimed to have beneficial interest pursuant to various agreements between the parties, all dated 20 November 1998. On the day of the filing of the action against the defendant, the plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction by way of an ex parte application. This was on 26 September 2001. Then, on 15 October 2001 by consent of the defendant the interim injunction was extended until final disposal by way of inter parte hearing (as per Kertas Mahkamah No. 12).

In the meantime the defendant filed their statement of defence and counterclaim on 13 October 2001. The defendant among other pleadings, claimed that the agreements dated 20 November 1998 were null and void and sought the court's declaration and claimed for vacant possession.

After some delay, the interim injunction, originally obtained on 26 September 2001 was set aside, after an inter parte hearing (Kand. No. 12) on 2 April 2002. Since 26 September 2001 the defendant vacated the land, (which was the subject matter of the litigation) and the plaintiffs moved in and took possession of the land.

The plaintiffs, not happy with the setting aside order given on 2 April 2002, filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the plaintiffs filed and obtained an Erinford Injunction pending disposal of the said appeal in the Court of Appeal, on 26 April 2002. By virtue of the said Erinford Injunction, the plaintiffs remained in occupation of the disputed land.

The Court of Appeal, vide Civil Appeal No. C-02-247 of 2002, heard and disposed of the appeal by the plaintiffs on 12 May 2003. The appeal was dismissed. After some dispute over the actual wordings of the Court of Appeal's decision and order in dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal, it was finally agreed that, inter alia, upon dismissing the appeal the Court of Appeal made an additional order, pursuant to an oral application by the defendant (respondent), that the defendant (respondent) is given the liberty to make an application for "consequential order or any other further order before the judge of the High Court in Temerloh". That order gives birth to this application by the defendant as per Kertas Mahkamah No. 110.

The Application In KM 110

At the outset of the hearing of the application, I sought clarification and confirmation, from both parties, that in essence the application KM 110 is an application for va