Denis Ong JCA:

The abovenamed appeals and two other related appeals were fixed for hearing before this panel (ie, Denis Ong, Mohd Saari and Alauddin Mohd Sheriff JJCA) for the first time in the week commencing on 31 July 2001. The two other related appeals were:

(a) MRRS No: B-02-347-95

Wong Bin Chen ... Appellant

v.

Staghorn Sdn Bhd ... Respondent

(b) MRRS No: B-02-371-95

Hong Leong Finance Bhd ... Appellant

v.

Staghorn Sdn Bhd ... Respondent

These eight appeals actually came on for hearing on 2 August 2001 starting with the appeal in (a) above followed by the appeal in (b). Both appeals were struck out upon the application of Mr. Joginder Singh and Miss J. Kannaperan, learned counsel for the respective appellants, to withdraw them. There were no objections from Mr. Yusuf Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, and no order was made as to costs. These two appeals were thus disposed of.

When the remaining six appeals abovenamed came on for hearing on the same day, Miss Kannaperan informed the court that she had three separate motions namely: encl. (15a) in MRRS No: B-02-255-94, encl. (12a) in MRRS No: B-08-183-95, and encl. (51a) in MRRS No: B-02-132-95 to be heard first. A feature common with all three motions was that they sought orders of this court to file supplementary appeal records to include in the cases of encls. (12a) and (51a) the order of the High Court at Shah Alam dated 17 April 1995 which inter alia, set aside its own previous order of sale dated 9 August 1991 and the auction sale so held on 16 November 1991 pursuant thereto in respect of land held under Certificate of Title 23316 Lot No: 1996 in the Mukim of Semenyih; and in the case of encl. (15a), an order of the High Court at Shah Alam dated 8 October 1994 which inter alia,ordered the Registrar of Titles or the Collectors of Lands, Selangor, Shah Alam to produce for inspection of the 2nd proposed intervener and for copies to be taken of C.T. 23316, Lot No. 1996; all documents relevant to Lien Holder's Caveat No: 4556/81 Jld 9 Folio 196 and its withdrawal; and all documents relevant and connected to Private Caveat No. 912/81 Jld 2 Folio 146 entered by N. Jegatheeson. The 3 motions asked for extension of time and leave of the court to file and serve the supplementary appeal records within seven (7) days of receipt of the sealed order of the High Court at Shah Alam.

The ground common to all these motions was the complaint of the respondent that the appeal records were bad in law for non-compliance with rr. 18(4)(d) and 18(7) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994(RCA) in that such appeal records did not have a sealed copy or a certified true copy of the orders appealed from. The appellant by their counsel deposed in the supporting affidavits to these motions that such complaint was not made before although the appeal had come before the Court of Appeal for hearing previously.

The respondent replied in their affidavits that there was a lapse of 5 1/2years since filing of the notice and appeal records for which the appellant gave no explanation for the delay or inaction. In the result, they maintained that non-compliance with the mandatory Rules of the Court of Appeal renders the appeals incompetent which went to the jurisdiction, in that there is no proper appeal to adjudicate by this court.

At the hearing on 2 August 2001 before us Miss Kannaperan submitted first, introducing the three motions which she maintained were proper and cited UMBC's case United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v. Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd (No 2)[1987] ; [1988] 3 MLJ 352 followed by Mr. Khan. He submitted that the appellant extracted the court order dated 27 April 1995 in 1995 itself and that a copy of the sealed order was in the appeal record at the Federal Court level. He prayed that the applications be dismissed adding that the fact that no objection was taken previously did not mean that special circumstances existed for leave to be granted. Miss Kannaperan then r