A discovery application must demonstrate that the requested document is necessary and relevant for a fair trial, and it must be in the possession of the opposing party.

Phulrani Kaur Gurcharon Singh M:

(Enclosure 11)

A. Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in relation to the Court's decision in dismissing the Plaintiff's application for discovery of documents under O 24 rr 3, 7, 12 and 16 Rules of Court 2012 dated 13 November 2024 (Enclosure 11).

[2] With regards to the appeal, this Court will give its analysis and findings based on all evidence and exhibits tendered before this Court.

B. Brief Facts Of The Case

[3] The cause of action by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in this case is for the debt owed by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff during the course of their previous relationship.

[4] As stated in the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff claims that he had lend the Defendant a total sum of RM16,809.54 between 15 October 2020 until 5 July 2022. However in the Defence, the Defendant rebuts the claim by stating that she had never borrowed any money from the Plaintiff and that the monies were given as "hadiah" and "bantuan" during the course of their relationship whereby now they are no longer in it.

[5] On 4 October 2024, upon concluding that the Defence filed by the Defendant was in time per O 18 r 2 Rules of Court 2012, the Court then ordered both parties to file all relevant bundle of documents including Ikatan Pliding, Ikatan Dokumen yang Dipersetujui, and Ikatan Dokumen yang Tidak Dipersetujui. However, on 25 October 2024 during the e-review Case Management, both parties were in dispute as to the labelling of document in the draft index sent by the Plaintiff solictitors for the Ikatan Dokumen Bersama and the Court then ordered each party to file their own bundle of documents.

[6] Further to that, the Plaintiff's solicitors then filed a Notice of Application supported by Affidavit (Encl 11) on 13 November 2024 whereby they seek for an order under O 24 rr 3, 7, 12 and 16 Rules of Court for the discovery of Defendant's Maybank Statement of Account between 6 January 2021 until 5 July 2022.

[7] The Plaintiff's brief summary for this application is as follows:

a) The Plaintiff's solicitiors had sent to the Defendant solicitors the list of documents with its categories for their approval. However, the defendant solicitors were not agreeable to the markings and the labelling of the word "pinjaman" for item No 1 until 14 and asked for it to be replaced as "Resit Maybank";

b) The Plaintiff solictors disagree on the grounds that they can mark their documents based on their claims. Due to this disagreement the Defendant solicitors then asked for the documents in item No 1 until 14 to be placed under Ikatan Dokumen C;

c) The Plaintiff solicitors are not agreeable as the authenticity of said documents is not a dispute in the claim and that the Defendant had admitted to receiving said monies in para 4 and 5 of the Defence;

d) The document seeked in the discovery application is done in good faith and it is relevant as the claim in this case is based on the Plantiff lending money to the Defendant;

e) Labelling of a document does not amount to admission and it is for the Defendant to prove otherwise if she is not agreeable with the labelling of said documents;

f) The Defendant admitted on receiving the monies although on the basis of "bantuan/hadiah" which then makes it rightful for the Plaintiff to seek the Defendant's Maybank Statement of Account;

g) The Defendant's argument that Defendant's Maybank Statement of Account is a confidential document does not hold waters as the Court has the discretion to make an order to produce said document as it is relevant to the proceedings; and

h) It is not a fishing expedition as the documents seeked as based on the defendant's objection eventhough she had admitted to receiving the monies.

[8] The Defendant's brief summary in disagreeing with this application is as follows:

a) The Defendant's solicitiors submitted that the order for discovery of document is not necessary as firstly the Court have ordered both parties to file their bundle of documents sepa