Azizan Md Arshad JC:

JUDGMENT

[Enclosure 19]

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is an application by the Pencelah Yang Dicadangkan (“Proposed Intervener”) to intervene in this suit pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012

THE CAUSE PAPERS

[2]The cause papers filed in respect of this application are as follows:

(i)the Notice of Application (Enclosure 19) dated 8.8.2022;

(ii)the Proposed Intervener’s Affidavit (Enclosure 20) affirmed on 8.8.2022 (“Proposed Intervener’s Affidavit”);

(iii)the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in reply (Enclosure 22) affirmed on 29.8.2022 (“Plaintiff’s Reply”); and

(iv)the Proposed Intervener’s Affidavit in reply (Enclosure 23) affirmed on 9.9.2022 (“Proposed Intervener’s Affidavit In Reply”)

BACKGROUND FACTS

[3]This suit was filed by the Plaintiff as the legal owner of the premise known as Hakmilik No. 38150, Lot 74, Seksyen 20, Daerah Timur Laut, Bandar Georgetown, Pulau Pinang.

[4]The said premise was rented out to an individual by the name of Goh Hong Chin (“Goh”) and a tenancy agreement was entered to this effect. However, Goh had vacated said premise on 31.10.2016. At the same time the Proposed Intervener has entered into an agreement with Goh. No agreement or any legal contract between the Proposed Intervener and the Plaintiff.

[5]The Plaintiff had subsequently obtained an order for vacant possession of the said premise on 23.09.2019. After obtaining a vacant possession order against the said premise, all the cause papers were served to all parties concerned to vacate it. No action was taken by the Proposed Intervener. The Plaintiff had obtained a vacant possession of the said premise on 03.12.2019 However, the Defendants (unknown persons) have again trespassed and the Proposed Intervener continued business activities at the premises [coffee shop]. It is within the knowledge of the Defendants and the Proposed Intervener of this order to vacant the premises at least by 03.12.2019.

[6]The Proposed Intervener had than decided to file a writ action to claim for damages of the premise via Civil Suit no. PA-A72NCVC-3- 01/202 (still pending in Sessions Court) and also to intervene in this suit.

THE LAW

[7]The relevant provision herein is Order 15 rule 6 of the ROC 2012O. 15 r. 6)

(1)A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.

(2)Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application-

(a)order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;

(b)order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely-

(i)any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

(ii)any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.

Cases

The relevant cases are as follows:

[8]In CHONG FOOK SIN V AMANAH RAYA BHD (AS THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF RAJA NONG CHIK BIN RAJA ISHAK, DECEASED) & ORS

“[23] The law in respect of evaluating intervener applications at first instance had been laid down by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors

[24] The decision in Pegang Mining was adopted by the then Supreme Court in Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v Superace (M) Sdn Bhd

[25] In Tohtonku Sdn Bhd the then Supreme Cour