Ahmad Maarop JC:

The Background

The defendant was the registered owner of the land known as Lot 480, (Geran Pendaftaran No. 5983), Lot No. 654 (Geran Pendaftaran No. 12690) and Lot 655 (Geran Pendaftaran No. 1269), all in Mukim Parit Melana, District of Alor Gajah, Malacca ("the said land). The said land were charged to the plaintiff. On 31 July 1998, the High Court, on the plaintiff's application ordered the sale of the said land by public auction. A number of earlier attempts to effect the sale of the said land failed. On 17 April 2000, the Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court ordered the land to be sold by auction on 26 June 2000. The intervener successfully bid for and purchased the lands at that auction at the price of RM4,203,000. The intervener had paid the auction price in full and the Registrar of the High Court had issued a certificate of sale dated 30 September 2000. On 14 August 2000, the defendant filed its application in encl. 79. On 24 November 2000 the intervener filed its application in encl. 85.

Both applications were fixed for hearing on 13 December 2000. In the summons in chambers (encl. 79), the defendant asked for the following orders:

(a)Lelongan yang diadakan pada 26 Jun 2000 mengenai tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 480, Geran No. 5983. Lot 654, Geran No. 12690 dan Lot 655, Geran No. 12691 Mukim Parit Melaka, Daerah Alor Gajah, Melaka dibatalkan;

(b)Kos permohonan dan kos mengenai lelongan tersebut ditanggung oleh plaintif;

(c)Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh plaintif kepada defendan.

The other application, ie, the summons in chambers in encl. 85 was filed by the applicant (intervener), asking for the following orders:

(a)Bahawa pemohon iaitu, Pernara Jaya Sdn Bhd dengan ini diberi liberti dan kebenaran untuk interven dalam prosiding mahkamah yang mulia ini;

(b)Bahawa sejurus prayer 1 diatas dibenarkan, tajuk dan prosiding ini dipinda untuk melibatkan pemohon sebagai intervener dalam prosiding mahkamah yang mulia ini;

(c)Bahawa permohonan defendan dalam saman dalam kamar bertarikh 14 Ogos 2000 untuk membatalkan jualan lelongan seperti dalam kandungan 79 ditolak dengan kos;

(d)Kos untuk dan bersampingan dengan permohonan ini berdasarkan indemniti ditanggung oleh defendan dan dibayar serta merta.

Application For Adjournment Of Enclosure 79

As the outset of the proceeding, counsel for the defendant informed the court that the defendant had no objection to the application by the intervener to intervene in the proceeding (prayer 1 and 2 of encl. 85), but added that the application by the intervener to strike out the defendant's application in encl. 79, (prayer 3 in encl. 85) could only be disposed off after the hearing of encl. 79. Counsel for the defendant then applied the adjournment of the hearing of encl. 79. The reason given in support of that application was that further affidavit (encl. 91) filed by the intervener in support of encl. 85 was served on the defendant the day before. According to counsel for the defendant, the defendant wanted to reply to the allegation made in para. 9 of encl. 91. Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the application for the postponement of encl. 79.

Postponement of cases is wholly within the discretion of the court upon considering the reason given in support of the application and the facts and circumstances of the case Lee Ah Tee v. Ong Tiow Pheng & Ors [1984] 1 CLJ 26; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 187.

In order to consider whether the application for postponement of the hearing of encl. 79, should be allowed or not it is necessary to refer to the various affidavits filed in respect of encl. 79 and encl. 85. encl. 79 is supported by the defendant's affidavit (encl. 80). In reply to encl. 80, the plaintiff filed the affidavit deposed to by Teoh Hock Lim (encl. 74A). In reply to encl. 74A, the defendant filed the affidavit in encl. 74. In answer to this the plaintiff filed the affidavit in encl. 75. The defendant filed two more affidavits; encl. 76 and encl. 89.

E