JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Cho J:

Introduction

[1] By way of a Notice of Appeal dated 9 December 2024, the 1st and 2nd Appellants (who were the 2nd and 5th Defendants in the Sessions Court , respectively) appealed to this Court against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge dated 27 November 2024, which dismissed their applications to set aside two Judgments in Default entered against them by the Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court ) on 3 November 2022 and 30 January 2023, respectively.

The Core Issues

[2] The appeal centres on the following three issues:

• Whether the JIDs entered against the 1st and 2nd Appellants were regular or irregular;

• If regular, whether the 1st and 2nd Appellants have disclosed a defence on the merits; and

• Whether there was inordinate delay in applying to set aside the JIDs.

Proceedings In The Sessions Court

[3] In order to provide clarity and a better understanding of the issues under consideration, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events that took place in the Sessions Court . The sequence of events was as follows:

Date Event

09 August 2022 The Plaintiff (Respondent in the present appeal) filed a suit against 5 Defendants (which both Appellants were part of) at the Sessions Court .

19 August 2022 Service of the Amended Writ of Summon and Statement of Claim on the 1st Appellant was made via AR Registered Post.

7 December 2022 Service of the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the 2nd Appellant was effected by way of substituted service.

3 November 2022 Respondent obtained Judgement in Default of Appearance against the 1 st Appellant.

30 January 2023 Respondent obtained Judgement in Default of Appearance against the 2nd Appellant.

14 March 2023 Respondent executed an ex-parte Garnishee proceeding.

30 March 2023 The Garnishee Order to Show Cause was recorded against the Appellants' accounts, and this was not challenged by the Appellants.

19 May 2023 The Garnishee Order Absolute was recorded against the Appellants, leading to sums of of RM247.28 and RM57.88 for First Appellant, and RM34,600.60 for the Second Appellant being garnished.

31 January 2024 Appellants filed the Setting Aside Application.

25 October 2024 The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellants' application with costs of RM2,000.00.

9 December 2024 Appellants filed Notice of Appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The Applicable Provisions And Principles

[4] The primary provisions of the Rules of 2012 that are relevant for purposes of this appeal are O 10 r 1(1), O 13 r 8, O 42 r 13 and O 62 rr 4 and 5.

[5] Order 10 r 1(1) of the Rules of 2012 is the general provision that governs service of an Originating Process. It provides as follows:

General provisions (O 10, r 1)

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of any written law and these Rules, a writ shall be served personally on each defendant or sent to each defendant by prepaid A.R. registered post addressed to his last known address or by means of electronic communication in accordance with any practice direction issued for that purpose and in so far as is practicable, the first attempt at service must be made not later than one month from the date of issue of the writ.

[6] Order 62 rr 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2012 deal with service on corporations and substituted service respectively. The relevant provisions read as follows:

Service on corporation (O 62 r 4)

4. (1) Where an action is against a corporation, the writ may be served:

(a) by leaving a copy of it at the registered office (if any) of the corporation;

(b) by sending a copy of it by registered post addressed to the corporation at the office, or, if there are more offices than one at the principal office of the corporation, whether such office is situated within Malaysia or elsewhere;

(c) by handing a copy of it to the secretary or to any director or other officer of the corporation; or

(d) in the case of a foreign company registered under Part XI of the Companies Act 1965 [Act 125] by handing a copy of it to, o