The Sessions Court's decision to dismiss an application to strike out is non-appealable under Section 28(1)(c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 if it concerns a withdrawn writ, thus necessitating revision powers for correction.

Pendahuluan

[1] Dalam kes ini rayuan adalah terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah menolak permohonan Perayu/Defendan untuk membatalkan tindakan Responden/Plaintif pada 17 Disember 2024 iaitu Notis Permohonan di KM 15 di Mahkamah Sesyen.

[2] Pada masa yang sama Responden/Plaintif telah dibenarkan untuk menarik balik writ saman dan penyata tuntutan tanpa kos pada 11 November 2024. Perintah penarikan balik yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut tidak pernah dirayu atau diketepikan oleh Perayu/Defendan.

[3] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam alasan penghakimannya menyatakan Notis Permohonan di KM 15 tersebut telah menjadi akademik untuk diputuskan bukan sahaja terhadap Defendan Pertama yang telah digulungkan tetapi ke atas kedua-dua Defendan yang disaman bersekali. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah memetik kes Tony Pua Kiam Wee v. Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Haji Abdul Razak 2019 MarsdenLR 922 ; [2020] 3 MLJ 102 ; [2020] 1 CLJ 260 . Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes tersebut menyatakan seperti yang berikut berkenaan dengan kesan penarikan tindakan:

"[13] We have read the appeal records and the able submissions of the parties. After much consideration to the submissions of the parties, we take the view that the appeal has merit. Our reasons, inter alia, are as follows:

(a) it is trite the right to withdraw the action rests with the plaintiff with a small window for the court to direct the matter to proceed and also hear the defendant's evidence (see Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Ors v. Raja Segaran S Krishnan 2002 MarsdenLR 1025; 2002 MarsdenLR 2294 ; 2002 MarsdenLR 1635 ; Covell Matthews & Partners v. French Wools Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 876; Castanho v. Brown & Root (UK) Ltd and another [1981] 1 All ER 143). The issue, at the end of the day, will only relate to costs and also issues of damages related to unlawfully securing interlocutory orders. In addition, we must say that in the event the defendant by the conduct of the plaintiff's action has suffered loss and damages, etc; other form of action can be mounted for abuse of process of the court inclusive of action for malicious prosecution. Whether such action will succeed or not will depend on the facts of each case and the gravity of the abuse;

(b) as far as this action is concerned, once the main suit is withdrawn all other applications and interlocutory orders made by the plaintiff or defendant will also collapse. In our view, it is one of common sense related to the rule of law as well as procedure. Stay of proceedings on the facts may not be an appropriate relief purely on the ground that there is an appeal pending in the Federal court; and

(c) on the issue of whether interim order will be dissolved if the main suit is withdrawn, we are of the view it is deemed to be vacated save that it should be through the order of court and where relevant, the court must order inquiry as to damages when there is a specific undertaking as to damages. Support for the proposition is found in a number of cases cited by the parties herein. It is sufficient for us to quote from CM Row's Law of Injunctions (9 Ed 2013) at p 59, where the learned author observed:

When a party obtains an interim order and he does not choose a final adjudication and voluntarily withdraws his cause and the final proceedings is dismissed as withdrawn, the interim order automatically stands vacated... (see V Ramakrishna v. N Sarojini AIR 1993 AP 147 )."

[4] Walau bagaimanapun dalam kes ini Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah meneruskan pendengaran Notis Permohonan di KM 15 dengan menyatakan di perenggan [18] alasan penghakiman seperti yang berikut:

"[18] Secara alternatif dengan me