JUDGMENT

Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

[Encl 129 Plaintiff's Application to Amend Writ and Statement of Claim]

[1] This is the Plaintiff's Notice of Application filed on 14 April 2025 pursuant to and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 for the following orders:

(i) That leave be granted to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 2 March 2020 (Encls 1 and 2), in the manner where the proposed amendments have been underlined in red ink as shown in the Proposed Amended Writ and Proposed Amended Statement of Claim (Proposed Amendments), which are annexed to the Notice of Application filed herein;

(ii) That the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and

(iii) Such further and/or other relief as the Court deems fit.

[2] The grounds of this application are, among others, as follows:

(a) The Proposed Amendments are intended to reflect the current name and status of the Defendant and are made bona fide;

(b) The Proposed Amendments do not alter the character of the Plaintiff's action to a different and inconsistent one;

(c) At all material times, the Plaintiff is suing the Defendant as a firm. In this regard, the company searches show that there was no change in the Audit Firm Number of the Defendant and only a change in the Name of the Firm;

(d) No prejudice or injustice will be caused to the Defendant in any manner that cannot be compensated with costs.

[3] The cause papers filed in relation to Encl 129 are as follows:

(a) Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Datuk Tong Nguen Khoong filed on 14 April 2025 (Encl 130) and Reply Affidavit of filed on 27 May 2025 (Encl 134);

(b) Defendant's Affidavit in Reply of Gunalan a/l Appalasamy filed on 9 May 2025 (Encl 132) and Affidavit in Reply of Kumaraguru a/l Manokaran filed on 9 May 2025 (Encl 133);

(c) Plaintiff's Written Submissions (Encl 135) and Bundle of Authorities (Encl 136); and

(d) Defendant's Written Submissions (Encl 137), Reply Submissions (Encl. 139) and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 138 and 140).

Background

[4] The Defendant's solicitor raised a preliminary objection on the first day of trial (17 March 2025) concerning the name and existence of the Defendant, arguing that the Plaintiff could not sue a non¬existent entity and even if they proceed to do so, the Plaintiff would encounter issues when the Plaintiff intends to enforce the judgment in the event the Plaintiff is successful in their claim.

[5] On the even date, the Plaintiff applied to file this Notice of Application in response to the Defendant's Preliminary Objection addressed to Court which was filed on 13 March 2025 (Encl 126) as follows:

"Tujuan kami menulis surat ini adalah untuk memaklumkan kepada pihak Mahkamah bahawa kami akan membuat satu bantahan untuk diputuskan sebelum perbicaraan disebabkan ketidakwujudan lagi Defendan yang dinamakan dalam kes ini. Defendan yang dinamakan dalam kes ini, iaitu Gunalan & Associates yang merupakan satu milikan tunggal tidak lagi wujud dimana ianya sekarang dikenali sebagai GSK & Associates dan merupakan satu perkongsian. Perkara ini sudah lama diketahui oleh pihak Plaintif.

Untuk makluman Mahkamah, pada 12 March 2025, kami telah memaklumkan perkara ini kepada peguamcara Plaintif dimana sekiranya peguamcara Plaintif berniat untuk meminda Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, kami mempunyai bantahan dan sekiranya Plaintif berniat untuk meminda Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, kami akan membuat bantahan preliminary. Peguamcara telah mengambil maklum. "

Issues In This Application

[6] The Defendant has raised the following issues to oppose this Notice of Application as follows:

(a) there is an inordinate delay in the filing of Encl 129; and

(b) the Defendant no longer exists;

Plaintiff's Submissions (Encl 135)

Was There A Delay In Filing This Application?

[7] The Plaintiff submits that an amendment to a pleading may be made "at any stage of the proceedings" (O 20 r 5 ROC 2012).

The Court decided in the case Sheikh Khaled Jassem Mohammad Jassem Al-Thani v. Merbok Hilir Bhd; [2013] 7 MLJ 707; [2013] 1 CLJ 722 at