JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] The Sessions Court had ruled that the 2nd Defendant was in contempt of the Consent Order dated 19 April 2023 and sentenced her to 7 days imprisonment. Before this Court , the Appellant's grouses, well presented by her learned counsel at the hearing of the arguments for her appeal against the said Sessions Court Order, are the following:

(a) The Respondents had failed to comply with the strict provisions of O 52 r 3(2) of the Rules of 2012 (RoC) as there were no sufficient or detailed particulars of the alleged contempt;

(b) There was no evidence and the Sessions Court had not applied the correct burden of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt;

(c) The Consent Order itself is ambiguous and wide;

(d) No justification for the imposition of the sentence of 7 days imprisonment in any event.

The Case At The Sessions Court

[2] On 3 April 2023 the Respondents who are the Plaintiffs at the Sessions Court (whom this Court refers to as the Plaintiffs in this Decision) filed a suit against the Appellant who was cited as the 2nd Defendant (whom this Court will refer her to as) and one Navinder Singh a/l Harban Singh, cited as the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant had passed away prior to the committal proceedings at the Sessions Court . The Plaintiffs claim that the two Defendants had committed trespass, assault, battery and defamation.

[3] Going back to the beginning of the chronology of this case at the Session Court , on 5 April 2023 the Plaintiffs obtained an ex-parte Interim Injunction Order. Later, on 19 April 2023 the parties entered into a Consent Order. It contained the same terms as the said ex-parte Interim Injunction Order. The terms of which the Plaintiffs had cited in their application for contempt at the Sessions Court are herein reproduced for ease of reference for this Court 's assessment. They are paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (f) with the relevant portions of substance of the agreement underlined:

"(a) bahawa suatu injunksi untuk melarang dan/atau menghalang dan/atau menahan Defendan Pertama, sama ada melalui dirinya sendiri dan/atau ejennya dan/atau pengkhidmatan dan/atau pekerjanya dan/atau wakilnya untuk memasuki dan/atau berada di kawasan harta bersama ("common properties") Plaintiff Pertama atas apa jua tujuan sekalipun, kecuali untuk tuiuan keluar masuk dan menginap di rumah Defendan Kedua yang beralamat C-5-4 Amadesa Resort Condominium. Jalan 5/125, Taman Desa Petaling, 57100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan.

(b) bahawa suatu injunksi untuk melarang dan/atau menghalang dan/atau menahan Defendan Pertama, sama ada melalui dirinya sendiri dan/atau ejennya dan/atau pengkhidmatnya dan/atau pekerjanya dan/atau wakilnya untuk mendekati dan/atau menghubungi Plaintif Kedua. Plaintif Ketiga, Plaintlf Keempat, Plaintif Kelima, Plaintif Keenam, Plaintif Ketujuh, Plaintif Kelapan, pemilik-pemilik dan kakitangan-kakitangan Plaintif Kesembilan dan pemilik-pemilik dan kakitangan-kakitangan Plaintif Kesepuluh, termasuk ahli-ahli keluarga dan/atau saudara-mara dan/atau wakil Plaintif Kedua sehingga Plaintif Kesepuluh masing-masing atas apa jua keadaan dan di mana jua sekalipun.

(c) bahawa suatu injunksi untuk melarang dan/atau menghalang dan/atau menahan Defendan-Defendan, sama ada melalui diri mereka sendiri dan/atau ejennya dan/atau pengkhidmatnya dan/atau pekerjanya dan/atau wakilnya daripada menerbitkan, mengatakan, menuliskan dan menyebarkan dan/atau menyebabkan penerbitan, pengataan, penulisan dan penyebaran sebarang kenyataan dan/atau sebarang perakaman atau salinan perakaman audio dan visual yang mengandungi perkataan-perkataan dan/atau inferen-inferen dan/atau inuendo-inuendo yang memfitnahkan. menghinakan dan/atau menieiaskan imei dan/atau reputasi peribadi atau komersil atau profession atau karier ("career") Plaintif Kedua, Plaintif Ketiga, Plaintif Keempat, Plaintif Kelima, Plaintif Keenam, Plaintif Ketujuh, Plaintif Kelapan, pemilik-pemilik dan kakitangan-kakitangan Plaintif Ke