JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff by way of this Originating Summons ("OS") is seeking to set aside a decision of the Magistrate given on 3 August 2020 in a civil suit WA-A72-15-01/2019.

[2] The provisions of law mentioned in the intitulement of the OS are O 7, 28, 5(3) &(4) and 92(4) of the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules").

[3] It is pointless to reproduce all the provisions of the Rules mentioned in the intitulement as all are general provisions Suffice if O 7(2) 1A is reproduced here:

2. Forms of originating summons (O 7 r. 2)

(1A) Every originating summons shall state in its intitulement any provision of these Rules and any provision of any written law under which the Court is being moved.

[4] The provision of the written law mentioned in the intitulement are ss 23,32,34 of the of Judicature Act 1964, As s 23 is a general provision of the law it need not be reproduced. The relevant provisions of the law are ss 32 and 34 which for ease of reference are reproduced here:

Section 32

The High Court may call for and examine the record of any civil proceedings before any subordinate Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate Court .

Section 34

Where an appeal lies from any decision in any civil matter, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of a party who could have appealed.

The Issue

[5] The issue before this Court is the Court 's exercise of its revisionary powers in calling up the record of the Magistrate's Court and review the decision on its correctness, legality or propriety.

The Court 's Revisionary Powers

[6] Section 34 of the of Judicature Act 1964 is clear that no request for revision shall be entertained if the Plaintiff could have appealed the decision which they now contend is illegal.

[7] In the affidavit in support there is absolutely no reason given why the Plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the Magistrate. The Plaintiff should have appealed the decision if not satisfied with the decision. Although appeals should be filed within 14 days the time can be extended at the discretion of the Court .

Conclusion

[8] In the upshot the Court refuses to exercise its revisionary powers as there are no reason to do so and thereby dismisses the OS with a cost of RM2,000.00.