JUDGMENT

Nurulhuda Nur'aini Mohamad Nor J:

(Enclosures 47 & 82)

[1] Enclosure 82 is pertaining to an application by the defendants via their letter dated 11 April 2025 in this suit not to pursue their defence and counterclaim filed earlier in encl 12.

[2] The counterclaim is contained in the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (hereafter referred to as "ASDCC"), filed by the defendants on 12 September 2024 in this suit. It was amended by virtue of O 20 r 3(1) of the Rules of 2012.

[3] The application was objected to by the plaintiff via a letter dated 15 April 2025 (encl 83) as an application to strike out the said ASDCC was filed earlier by the plaintiff on 25 September 2024 via encl 13. Submissions were equally filed by the plaintiff and similarly, by the defendants not long after.

[4] A subsequent application for discovery by the plaintiff was also filed on 11 March 2025 but followed with the defendants' affidavit to contest the said application. Submissions were then filed by both parties. Lastly was the application via encl 47 by the defendants to consolidate this suit and suit JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 ("Suit 46")[Gow Jia Le v. Aia Bhd] and for these suits to be transferred to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur.

[5] This Court dismissed encl 47, in which the decision by this Court to dismiss encl 47 is also a subject of appeal and is canvassed in the later part of this Grounds of Judgment.

A. Findings Of This Court

[6] The basis for the withdrawal of the counterclaim by the defendants as notified in the defendants' letter is that as trial dates are yet to be fixed as the suits are still at the stage for pre-trial directions, there will be no prejudice to any parties. With the withdrawal, the defendants hope to have the said counterclaim against the plaintiff and agents to be consolidated in a new suit that was already filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and agents.

[7] It is this Court 's observation that in short, the plaintiff by filing the application to strike out the ASDCC, did not want the defendant sto pursue with the amended version of the Defence and counterclaim. It is of utmost importance to note that the initial Statement of Defence also carries a counterclaim by the defendants, hence the counterclaim (without going into details of the content of the ASDCC) is not an afterthought claim by the defendants.

[8] However, looking at the ASDCC, it was full of red marks of underlined paragraphs of newly inserted contents and red marks of deletion of earlier contents. In short, it can be seen by looking at the appearance of the ASDCC which contains far too many red marks, it can be said to be a new document altogether filed by the defendants.

[9] Hence, the letter by the defendants to withdraw the ASDCC in fact (again without going in depth as to why), answers the plaintiff's stand to seek for a striking out of the defendants ASDCC of the newly inserted paragraphs and the deletion of the existing ones. To this Court , the letter by the defendants in encl 82 is in fact a mutual response by the defendants obliging the plaintiff's application to strike out the ASDCC.

[10] What is left is for this Court to address the issue of cost, taking into consideration the filing of the respective applications and submissions by the plaintiff relating to this ASDCC itself. This was the stand taken by this Court when allowing the withdrawal of the ASDCC by the defendants without further deliberation on the need for a proper application to amend, be filed. It follows that the defendants' request to withdraw was granted, but with costs.

B. Application To Consolidate And Transfer

[11] The Court then proceeded to hear the defendants' application in encl 47 to consolidate both this suit with Suit 46 and to transfer them to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. The transfer was with the purpose for both these suits to be heard together with suit No WA-22NCC-858-12/2024 ("Suit 858") (also formerly known as WA-22NCvC-429-07/2024). T