Abdul Malik Ishak J:

This was an application by the plaintiff in encl. 77 for a stay of Johor Bahru High Court civil suit no: 22-156-1996 pending the completion of Johor Bahru Sessions Court arrest cases - bearing numbers 62-20, 21 and 22 of 1996. Enclosure 77 was supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff himself one Dato' Ding Lian Cheon as seen in encl. 76 and that affidavit was affirmed on 27 November 1997 and filed on 8 December 1997. The first defendant by the name of Yap You Jee and the third defendant by the name of Haji Johari bin Mansor resisted and challenged the plaintiff's application in encl. 77. In so far as the second defendant - Md Jhomi bin Md Supian, was concerned, the plaintiff had procedurally and successfully obtained judgment in default of appearance on 30 September 1996 and so the plaintiff had only to reckon with the first and third defendants in so far as encl. 77 was concerned.

I repeat, encl. 77 was supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff in encl. 76 that was affirmed on 27 November 1997 and filed on 8 December 1997. The third defendant affirmed an affidavit in reply in encl. 80 on 26 January 1998 which was filed on the same date and this was in reply to encl. 76. The plaintiff responded by affirming an affidavit on 13 February 1998 as seen in encl. 84 and the same affidavit was filed on 19 February 1998 as seen in encl. 87. In short, both encls. 84 and 87 were the same and they replied to encl. 80. The first defendant too affirmed an affidavit on 9 March 1998 which was filed on 10 March 1998 as seen in encl. 89 and encl. 89 served as a reply to encls. 76, 84 and 87. The third defendant did not take any chances and he affirmed affidavit in reply in encl. 90 on 10 March 1998 which was filed on the same day. Enclosure 90 replied to encls. 84 and 87. The plaintiff then affirmed an affidavit in reply in encl. 92 on 13 February 1998 and this served as a reply to encl. 80. The plaintiff further affirmed an affidavit labelled as an affidavit in reply (No: 2) in encl. 96 on 21 March 1998 which was filed on 30 March 1998. Enclosure 96 served as a reply to encls. 80, 89 and 90. The third defendant also affirmed an affidavit in reply on 3 April 1998 which was filed on 4 April 1998 as seen in encl. 98. Now, enclosure 98 served as a reply to encl. 96. Finally, the third defendant affirmed an affidavit in reply in encl. 104 on 21 April 1998 which was filed on 22 April 1998.

It can thus be seen that in so far as encl. 77 was concerned the court had to peruse through several affidavits filed by the parties. Incidentally, this civil suit (Johor Bahru High Court Civil Suit No: 22-156-1996) was initially filed in the civil division of the High Court Kuala Lumpur vide Civil Suit No: S2- 22-132-1996 and, subsequently, at the behest of the third defendant in encl. 24 it was transferred to the Johor Bahru High Court where it was finally slotted to this court.

The statement of claim makes for interesting reading. It shows the gullibility of the plaintiff. I will narrate the facts as garnered from the statement of claim. In early June 1995, the plaintiff was informed by Loi Teck Hoi ("Loi"), a business associate of the plaintiff, to the effect that Loi had met the first defendant who said that he could help the plaintiff acquire some land in Johor Bahru. The plaintiff, a Sarawakian, was interested in acquiring land in Johor Bahru for investment purposes and so he asked Loi to arrange for a meeting with the first defendant. On 28 June 1995 the plaintiff and Loi went to Johor Bahru to attend a meeting with the first defendant. At Senai airport, the first defendant met both of them and without furtherado the first defendant brought the plaintiff and Loi to the site of a piece of land which according to the first defendant were Lots 21448 and 1152 with an acreage of 6.5 acres located at Jalan Skudai, Bandar Johor Bahru ("said land"). It seemed that the first defendant told the plaintiff that the said land was St