Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3267
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LIVING SMILE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: PA-11ANCVC-2-01/2024]
Once a judgment is perfected, a court is functus officio and the only remedy for challenging it is through an appeal, not a set aside application.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 34 r 2(4) & O 83 r 2(4) - Appeal against dismissal of application to set aside judgment - Proper mode to challenge inter partes decision is by appeal, not by set aside application - Court is functus officio upon pronouncement of decision - Delay in filing witness statement not prejudicial nor intentional. (Paras 5, 7, 9, 12, 13)
(B) Dismissal of Defendant's application on grounds of proper procedure as established by prior case law is affirmed, emphasizing that failure to comply with procedural directions must be addressed through appeal. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Defendant's application to set aside a prior judgment was dismissed for failing to comply with the pre-trial directions and was seen as an improper challenge. The Central issue involved whether the application could be filed instead of appealing the decision.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of application confirmed, emphasizing that inter partes decisions must be appealed and cannot be set aside by the same court once perfected.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendant's application was appropriate given the prior dismissals, and the correct procedural avenues available for challenging the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirms the principle that once a judgment has been delivered and perfected, it cannot be altered by the same court, and the proper channel for grievances against such judgments is through an appeal.
Result: Defendant's appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal process and initial judgments. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's reasons against dismissal and compliance. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiff's arguments regarding jurisdiction and appeal route. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. magistrate's rationale for dismissing the application. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal precedents affirming appeal as proper remedy. (Para 12 , 13) |
A. Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant/Defendant against the decision of the learned Magistrate Shyahirah binti Abdul Salim on 8 January 2024 dismissing the appellant's application at encl 54 to set aside the Order dated 6 June 2023 (encl 53) and Judgment dated 6 June 2023. (Enclosure 52) both delivered by Magistrate Mohd Hadi Hakimi bin Harun.
Enclosure 54;
Suatu permohonan oleh pihak defendan yang dinamakan di atas di bawah A 34 k 2(4) dan/atau A 92 k 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi perintah-perintah seperti berikut:
1. Perintah bertarikh 6 Jun 2023 bagi Notis Permohonan bertarikh 1 Jun 2023 (Lampiran 41) diketepikan;
2. Penghakiman bertarikh 6 Jun 2023 dimasukkan terhadap Defendan diketepikan;
3. segala prosiding pelaksanaan dan/atau penguatkuasaan susulan daripada Penghakiman bertarikh 6 Jun 2023 yang diperolehi oleh plaintif terhadap defendan adalah digantungkan serta-merta sehingga pelupusan permohonan ini;
4. perintah interim untuk segala prosiding pelaksanaan dan/atau penguatkuasaan susulan daripada Penghakiman bertarikh 6 Jun 2023 yang diperolehi oleh plaintif terhadap defendan digantungkan sehingga pelupusan permohonan ini;
5. Defendan diberikan kebenaran untuk memfailkan pernyataan saksi defendan (yang telah difailkan ke dalam Sistem e-Filing pada Lampiran 45);
6. kos; dan
7. relif-relif lain dan/atau perintah-perintah lain sebagaimana yang dianggap wajar oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
Enclosure 53
MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa:
[a] Permohonan plaintif di bawah Lampiran 41 dibenarkan;
[b] Pernyataan Pembelaan Dan Tuntutan Balas Defendan bertarikh 30 April 2021 dibatalkan;
[c] Penghakiman dimasukkan terhadap defendan sepertimana yang dituntut di bawah perenggan-perenggan 17(a), 17(b) dan 17(c) dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan plaintif bertarikh 31 Mac 2021; dan
[d] Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada plaintif kos sebanyak RM1,000.00.
Bertarikh pada 6 Jun 2023
Enclosure 52
MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIHAKIMKAN bahawa defendan hendaklah membayar kepada plaintif seperti yang berikut:
[a] wang jumlah sebanyak RM21,000.00 {yang terdiri daripada RM18,000.00 sebagai "Security Deposit" dan RM3,000.00 sebagai "Utilities Deposit';
[b] faedah di bawah A 42 k 12 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian sepenuhnya; dan
[c] Kos sebanyak RM2,428.00.
Bertarikh pada 6 Jun 2023
[2] The parties will be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant in this judgment.
B. Background Case
[3] The Plaintiff's case against the defendant at the Magistrates' Court was for the return of the Security Deposit and Utilities Deposit amounting to RM21,000.00. During the case management, the plaintiff filed an application to strike out the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 30 April 2021 at encl 41. Upon hearing the application, the learned Magistrate allowed the plaintiff's application and enter judgment against the defendant as per encls 52 and 53.
[4] Dissatisfied with the decision, the defendant then filed for an application under encl 54 to set aside the Order dated 6 June 2024 and Judgment dated 6 June 2023. Upon hearing encl 54, the learned Magistrate dismissed the defendant's application and now the defendant appeals to this Court.
C. The Appellant/Defendant Submission
[5] The Defendant submitted that the Magistrate dismissed encl 41 based on non-compliance under O 34 r 2(4) Rules of Court 2012. There was no unless order or peremptory order was made by the Magistrate regarding to the non-compliance with pre-trial directions by the parties at all material times, in particular during the ca
