JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] Once, twice, three times an appeal. Such, it would seem, is the tale of the present proceedings before this court, encapsulated in encls 44 and 45.

[2] It started with a Consent Judgment, recorded between the parties in 2016.

[3] What followed was a succession of appeals and interlocutory applications, a long and winding road of litigation that has brought the parties once again before this court.

[4] By its decision on 23 September 2025, this court dismissed both encls 44 and 45 with costs of RM20,000.00.

[5] Undeterred, the appellant has now filed two further Notices of Appeal, dated 22 October 2025, in encls 110 and 111, seeking to challenge that dismissal.

[6] These, then, are the grounds of judgment in respect of encls 44 and 45.

Undisputed Facts

[7] The Defendant had charged its property to the plaintiff as security for a loan facility.

[8] Following the defendant's default in repayment, the company went into receivership, and a Receiver and Manager was duly appointed.

[9] An Order for Sale in respect of the charged property was subsequently granted, and directions were issued for the property to be sold by way of public auction.

[10] The vali