The court ruled that non-compliance with a discovery order does not automatically justify striking out the defence, emphasizing the need for cases to be resolved at full trial when serious issues are present.

A. Plaintiff's Application

[1] This is the Plaintiff's application vide Notice of Application dated 2 January 2024 (encl 57) under O 24 r 16 of Rules of Court for leave to strike out the Defendant's defence due to the reason that the First Defendant has failed and/or refused to comply with the order dated 9 February 2023 ("the Order"). According to prayer 4 of the Order, the defence will be struck out by this honourable Court in the event the First Defendant refuses and/or fails to comply with the Order. The Order to be observed are as follows:

[a] Defendan Pertama dalam tempoh masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah yang diarahkan menurut permohonan ini, atau tempoh masa lain yang diarahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk mengikrarkan afidavit menyatakan sama ada Defendan Pertama ada atau pernah ada pada semua masa yang material dalam milikan, jagaan atau kuasa Defendan Pertama dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan dengan penerimaan RM98,500.00 sahaja daripada Plaintif melalui Public Bank cek no 166519 bertarikh 9 December 2019 yang diisukan oleh Tetuan Gan Teik Chee & Ho yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun CIMB Bank Berhad no 8008683953 milik Defendan Pertama sebagai sebahagian harga pembelian premis yang beralamat No 88-27-1, Persiaran Gurney, 10250 Georgetown, Pulau Pinang yang didirikan di atas hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Hakmilik Strata No Geran 58491/M1/27/52, Seksyen 1, Bandar George Town, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang (kemudian dirujuk sebagai "Premis tersebut") yang termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada dokumen-dokumen yang disenaraikan di Lampiran A yang dilampirkan pada Notis Permohonan ini;

[b] Defendan Pertama meneruskan penzahiran bagi kesemua dokumen yang termasuk delam lingkungan permohonan ini atau sebarang dokumen yang boleh diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sehingga kesimpulan tindakan ini;

[c] Defendan Pertama menyediakan kesemua dokumen dalam lingkungan Lampiran A untuk pemeriksaan Plaintif dalam tempoh masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah ini, atau tempoh masa lain yang diarahkan olch Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan salinan dokumen-dokumen yang relevan supaya pemeriksaan oleh Plaintif boleh dibuat;

[d] Pembelaan dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sekiranya Defendan Pertama enggan dan/atau gagal untuk mematuhi Perintah yang selaras dengan permohonan ini; dan

[e] Lain-lain.

[2] The order was delivered by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant's solicitor, but there was no response provided by the First Defendant. Through a letter dated 20 October 2023, the Plaintiff once again requested the First Defendant to comply with the order, but this was rejected by the First Defendant through a letter from the First Defendant's solicitor dated 27 October 2023.

[3] According to the letter dated 27 October 2023, the First Defendant refuses to fulfil their obligations under the Order for the following reasons:

[a] "...your threat to execute the Order dated 9 February 2023 is baseless in view of the fact that the purported transaction of the Sale of the property that your client asserts is wholly fraudulent and unfounded"; and

[b] "... furthermore the Honorable Court of Appeal Judge has found as a fact that there are serious issues of fraud and forgery. In that circumstances, it is wrong for you to execute the Court Order dated 9 February 2023".

[4] The reasons provided by the First Defendant were entirely baseless and/or without merit. Although the Plaintiff's appeal against the decision of Enclosure 10 - application for Summary Judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal , this does not absolve the First Defendant of their responsibility to comply with the discovery order dated 9 February 2023. Since the First Defendant has failed to comply with the Order, prayer 4 of t