JUDGMENT

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

[Enclosure 10 - Application To Set Aside The Order For Sale Dated 15 July 2016]

A. Introduction

[1] This is an application filed by Ravindra A/P K. Karuppiah ("Ravindra"), being the Wife and Administrator of the estate of the defendant who has passed away on 16 February 2014.

[2] Ravindra filed this application with the intention to set aside the Order for Sale dated 15 July 2016 ("the Order for Sale"). Ravindra seeks from this court to set aside the Order for Sale and declare, inter alia, that all execution proceedings arising from the court order are null and void.

Background Facts

[3] The Order for Sale which was granted to the plaintiff in this suit was related to a piece of property known as H.S.(D) 47949, No. PT 34003, Bandar Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor ("the Property").

[4] Based on the Order for Sale, an auction for the Property was carried out by the plaintiff on 17 October 2016.

[5] At all material times, the Intervener was the successful bidder for the Property. The Property was duly registered in the name of the intervener as the registered owner of the Property.

[6] At the outset, it is pertinent to note that this is not the first time Ravindra attempted to set aside the Order for Sale. For the purpose of convenience, the chronology of Ravindra's multiple attempts to set aside the Order for Sale are as follows:

B. Findings And Decision Of The court

[7] As discussed above, prior to the filing of this Application, there have been at least six (6) determinations made by Ravindra to challenge the validity of the Order for Sale and the Auction Sale conducted on 17 October 2016.

[8] I will now look at Ravindra's Application in turn.

[9] In this Application, Ravindra intended to set aside the Order for Sale which was made by this court on 15 July 2016.

[10] Under O 32 r 6 of the Rules of 2012, this court is given a power and discretion to set aside any order made ex parte.

[11] Order 42 r 13 of the Rules of 2012 further provides that a party intending to set aside an order shall make an application to the court within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the order or judgment by such party.

[12] The Order for Sale which was granted on 15 July 2016 was subsequently served on the defendant at his last known address. At all material times, Ravindra has never disputed that she resides at such address until today.

[13] Therefore, the thirty (30) day period for Ravindra to set aside the Order for Sale had lapsed as this Application was only filed in 2023 and is way out of time.

[14] Taking Ravindra's case at its highest, assuming that the Order for Sale was not served in 2016, Ravindra evidently had knowledge from 2017 onwards when the intervener initiated a proceeding against Ravindra for vacant possession to which Ravindra contested. Therefore, Ravindra had knowledge of the Order for Sale, and the thirty (30) day period would have run from 2017.

[15] Even so, the thirty (30) day period for Ravindra to set aside the Order for Sale was way overdue.

[16] The Plaintiff and the intervener echoed the same and submitted that this court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain this Application as this Application was filed out of time.

[17] The Plaintiff further submitted that the excuse raised by Ravindra for the delay (just shy of seven (7) years) is that Ravindra is only filing these proceedings after disapproval by the Federal court is clearly without basis as time starts from knowledge of the Order for Sale and not from having gone through a process of trial and error through various proceedings.

[18] The Plaintiff also submitted that this court is no longer seized with jurisdiction and functus officio.

[19] It is well recognized in Malaysia that there must be finality in litigation and hence the doctrine of functus officio forms an integral part of the legal process.

[20] Once a court delivers a final order, it will lose its power and/or authority to review and reconsider such final order