JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] The parties shall be referred to herein as they were in the Sessions Court .

[2] This Judgment is on the Defendant's application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court given on 21 July 2025.

Salient Facts

[3] On 21 July 2025, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court made a decision allowing the plaintiff's claim and dismissing the defendant's counterclaim with costs ("Sessions Court Decision"). Under O 55 r 2 of the Rules of , 2012 ("Rules"), the defendant had 14 days to lodge an appeal to the High Court against the Sessions Court Decision.

[4] The Defendant filed its Notis Rayuan on 8 August 2025 ("Notice of Appeal"), outside of the prescribed 14-day period.

[5] At the 1st Case Management of that appeal on 15 August 2025 before the Registrar, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff notified the Court that it was objecting to the appeal and requested for it to be summarily dismissed. The grounds were that the Notice of Appeal had not been filed and had not been served on the plaintiff within the prescribed 14-day period, and without any application to extend or abridge the time for doing so. The Registrar then scheduled a Case Management before me on 22 August 2025 for the parties to bring these issues to my attention.

[6] By the time of that Case Management before me on 22 August 2025, the defendant had filed an application in encl 3 for, inter alia, an extension of time to file an appeal against the Sessions Court Decision ("1st EOT Application").

[7] At that Case Management on 22 August 2025, apart from informing the Court of its objections to the appeal, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff further highlighted to the Court that the 1st EOT Application was altogether wrong, because it had wrongly named and identified the Sessions Court Judge who had actually made the Sessions Court Decision, and had also cited the wrong date of the Sessions Court Decision. Counsel appearing for the Defendant, obviously unaware of these irregularities in the 1st EOT Application, requested for a further Case Management date to obtain the defendant's instructions. I duly scheduled a next Case Management date on 28 August 2025.

[8] By the time of that next Case Management before me on 28 August 2025, the defendant had withdrawn / discontinued the 1st EOT Application and had on 22 August 2025 filed an application in encl 6 in its place, also for an extension of time to file an appeal against the Sessions Court Decision ("2nd EOT Application").

[9] The Plaintiff is opposing the 2nd EOT Application, and affidavits and written submissions have been filed setting out both parties' positions.

Analysis And Decision

[10] The timelines for appealing to the High Court against a decision made by a Subordinate Court are set out in O 55 of the Rules.

[11] Order 55 r 2 of the Rules provides:

"All appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing and shall be brought by giving a notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of the decision appealed from."

[12] For service of a notice of appeal, O 55 r 3(4) of the Rules provides:

"A duplicate copy of the notice of appeal must be served by the appellant within the time limited for the filing of an appeal on all respondents."

[13] What these two provisions mean is that an appellant must file and serve its notice of appeal within 14 days of the decision appealed against. In this case, that meant that any appeal against the Sessions Court Decision had to be filed and served by 4 August 2025. Here, the defendant had filed the 2nd EOT Application on 22 August 2025, 18 days out of time.

[14] In the 2nd EOT Application, the Defendant is seeking the following relief:

"1. Bahawa Perayu diberikan pelanjutan masa dan/atau dibenarkan untuk merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi menurut A 3 k 5 dan A 92 k 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 terhadap keseluruhan daripada keputusan yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur, Pu