JUDGMENT

Prabakaran Rajoo M:

(Enclosure 19)

Introduction

[1] For the purpose of this judgment, the parties will be referred to as the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Where necessary in the context of the garnishee proceeding, the Plaintiff is the judgment creditor and the Defendant is the judgment debtor.

[2] This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The appeal arises after this Court refused to allow the Plaintiff's ex parte application in encl 19. The ex parte application was brought under O 49 of the Rules of 2012 ('ROC'). The Plaintiff sought an ex parte garnishee order nisi against 26 banks as listed in the application ('garnishees').

[3] Upon hearing, I dismissed the Plaintiff's ex parte application and my reasons are set out below.

Background

[4] On 17 October 2024, judgment in default of appearance was entered against the Defendant (encl 7). The judgment sum was RM23,671.94.

[5] The Defendant has not satisfied the judgment sum. No application to set aside the judgment has been filed.

[6] On 18 June 2025, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application under O 49 ROC (encl 19). The Plaintiff listed 26 banks as garnishees. A supporting affidavit was filed (encl 20). The order sought to require the garnishees to show cause why any debt due or accruing due from them to the Defendant should not be applied in satisfaction of the judgment debt of RM23,671.94 obtained by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. This ex parte application concerns only the first stage of garnishee proceedings namely the order nisi.

[7] During the hearing of the application, the Court asked the learned counsel for the Plaintiff's whether the application complied with the requirements of O 49 ROC. This was because the affidavit did not contain any facts showing that the 26 garnishees were indebted to the Defendant nor did it state the sources of the deponent's information or grounds for belief.

[8] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Ananda Kumar Krishnan; [2018] 6 MLJ 261; [2017] 5 CLJ 315; [2017] 4 AMR 1 ('TESCO Stores'). He submitted that according to the Court of Appeal, the 'modern approach' permits all financial institutions to be listed as garnishees and it is then for the banks to show cause whether they hold any monies for the Defendant. He further argued that this is not a 'fishing expedition' but an efficient mechanism to facilitate the enforcement of civil judgments.

[9] After considering the application, the supporting affidavit and oral submissions, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff's ex parte application with no order as to costs.

[10] Dissatisfied with this decision, the Plaintiff has now appealed to the Taiping High Court .

Principles

[11] The relevant provisions of O 49 ROC read as follows:

"49. Garnishee proceedings

1. Attachment of debt due to judgment debtor (O 49 r 1)

(1) Where a person (who is referred to as "the judgment creditor" in this Order) has obtained a judgment or order for the payment of money by some other person (who is referred to as "the judgment debtor" in this Order), not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into Court , and any other person within the jurisdiction (who is referred to as "the garnishee" in this Order), is indebted to the judgment debtor, the Court may, subject to the provisions of this Order and of any written law, order the garnishee to pay the judgment creditor the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee, or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy that judgment or order and the costs of the garnishee proceedings.

(2) An order in Form 97 under this rule shall in the first instance be an order to show cause, specifying the time and place for further consideration of the matter, and in the meantime attaching such debt as mentioned in paragraph (1), or so much thereof as may be specified in the order, to answer the judgment or order mentioned in that paragraph and the costs of the ga