JUDGMENT

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC:

I. Introduction And Nature Of Application

[1] This matter concerns the 1st Defendant's application (Enc. 13) filed pursuant to s 41 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 ("PAA 1959"), read together with O 71 r 45 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The application seeks three substantive orders: first, that the 1st and/or 2nd Plaintiff produce the original alleged Last Will and Testament of the late Jaikishan Rewachand a/I Rewachand ("the Deceased") dated 10 July 2017 ("the Alleged Will") at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry or such other appropriate location for inspection and examination; second, that a handwriting expert or forensic document examiner appointed by the 1st Defendant be permitted to inspect and examine the original Alleged Will; and third, that this Court issue such further directions as may be necessary and appropriate for the inspection and examination of the original document.

[2] This application is reflective of what the 1st Defendant pleaded in her defence and counterclaim. The counterclaim in encl 7 consists of just four paragraphs, adopting the Defence (paras 1-39), and seeking three main reliefs: the invalidity of the Alleged Will, a declaration of intestacy, and an application under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA 1958). These reliefs are the exact opposite of the assertions made in the main claim.

II. Background Case

[3] The 1st Defendant (who is the eldest daughter of the Deceased) applied under s 41 PAA 1959 to produce and inspect the original Alleged Will of her deceased father, the Deceased, who died on 11 July 2017. The Alleged Will, dated 10 July 2017 (one day before death), excluded all daughters and left the estate solely to the sons. The 2nd Plaintiff admitted having continuous custody of the original Alleged Will since the death (see encl 25 para 12). No grant of probate has been issued.

Procedural History

[4] For nearly seven years, the Plaintiffs refused multiple requests to produce the Alleged Will for examination. They initially denied its existence, then acknowledged it but refused access. The 1st Defendant was only briefly shown the Alleged Will on 30 April 2024, without permission to copy or examine it. Upon viewing, she observed the signature appeared inauthentic, filed a police report on 18 May 2024, and lodged a caveat on 11 June 2024.

[5] On 4 July 2024, the 1st Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No. WA-32NCVC-1927-07/2024 ("OS 1927") seeking a grant of probate in relation to the Alleged Will. The Defendants intervened in OS 1927 and filed affidavits opposing the grant of probate, consistently maintaining their challenge to the Alleged Will's authenticity.

[6] On 7 November 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this action seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Alleged Will is valid and an order for probate to be granted by this Court . Both Defendants are the parties in this suit. In response, the 1st Defendant filed not only her defence but also a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the Alleged Will is invalid and that the Deceased died intestate. The proceedings in OS 1927 are currently held in abeyance pending the full and final determination of the present suit. This arrangement recognises the need for the substantive issues to be properly ventilated.

[7] On 24 March 2025, the 1st Defendant, through her present solicitors, again requested the Plaintiffs to produce the original Alleged Will for inspection. Once more, this request was refused. It is against this backdrop of persistent requests and persistent refusals that the 1st Defendant filed the present application on 19 April 2025, seeking this Court 's intervention to secure production and examination of the document that lies at the heart of this dispute.

[8] This chronological narrative reveals several disturbing features. First, there is the initial denial of the Alleged Will's existence, followed by belated acknowledgement. Second, there is a consistent pattern