Back
2026 MarsdenLR 86
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SEREMBAN
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ, J
ROSLAINI MOHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
SITI RAMLAH AHMAD ALI – Respondent
[Rayuan Sivil No: NA-12B-21-07/2025]
Compliance with mandatory procedural timelines and rules for serving and filing appellate documents is strict and non-negotiable. Parties cannot use administrative delays or technical oversights to justify failure to adhere to the prescribed time limits, and such non-compliance is typically fatal to the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 55 Rule 3(4) - Service of notice of appeal - Mandatory requirement to serve notice of appeal within stipulated time is fatal if breached - Non-compliance cannot be cured without formal application for extension of time. (Paras 11-13, 16)
(B) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 55 Rule 4 - Filing of record of appeal - Appellant's duty to file record of appeal strictly within one month - Absence of grounds of judgment or appeal number does not absolve appellant of duty to comply with prescribed timelines. (Paras 24, 27, 31-32)
(C) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Importance of stating correct intitulement and provisions - Failure to specify statutory authority renders pleading embarrassing and potentially liable to be struck out. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An appellant filed an appeal against a lower court's decision regarding continuous trespass. The appellant subsequently filed an application for an extension of time to file the record of appeal and related documents. The respondent objected on the grounds that the appellant failed to state the relevant legal provisions in their notice of application and failed to serve the initial notice of appeal within the mandatory period.
Findings of Court:
The court held that strict adherence to the rules of court is mandatory. The appellant failed to serve the notice of appeal within the prescribed 14-day limit and neglected to file the record of appeal within one month of filing the notice of appeal, offering only unsubstantiated excuses regarding administrative delays. The court emphasized that the rules governing time limits exist to maintain a systematic and consistent procedure for litigation.
Issues: The issues were whether the failure to serve the notice of appeal within the prescribed time period constituted a fatal, non-curable irregularity, and whether the absence of an appeal number and availability of grounds of judgment provided sufficient justification for granting an extension of time for filing the record of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules must be obeyed; the court's discretion to extend time requires material evidence of merit, which was absent here. Mandatory requirements concerning service and filing schedules cannot be disregarded as 'technical' oversights. The appellant's failure to demonstrate diligence or apply for extensions prior to deadlines barred relief.
Result: Application for extension of time dismissed; notice of appeal set aside with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and identification of parties in the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. requirement for legal applications to specify relevant statutory provisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. mandatory nature of serving notice of appeal within stipulated timelines. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. responsibility of appellant to diligently comply with court rules. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. record of appeal must be filed regardless of pending grounds of judgment. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. dismissal of application for extension of time and cancellation of appeal. (Para 36) |
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Di dalam kes ini Perayu (Defendan) telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh 7 Julai 2025 (Lampiran 1) terhadap sebahagian keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di Seremban ("HMS") bertarikh 30 Jun 2025,di mana Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") telah memutuskan bahawa pihak Perayu (Defendan) adalah bertanggungan dengan pencerobohan berterusan dan telah membenarkan tuntutan pihak Responden (Plaintif) terhadap Perayu (Defendan) dengan kos sebanyak RM20,000.00.
[2] Seterusnya, pada 17 September 2025, pihak Perayu (Defendan) telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan (Lampiran 3) bagi mendapatkan lanjutan masa dan kebenaran untuk menyediakan dan memfailkan Rekod Rayuan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan bagi rayuan dan melakukan perkara-perkara berkaitan dengan persediaan rayuan ini.
[3] Setelah Mahkamah ini mendengar, membaca, meneliti dan menilai Notis Permohonan Perayu (Lampiran 3), afidavit-afidavit berserta dengan penghujahan-penghujahan bertulis yang telah difailkan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak, maka pada 23 Disember 2025,Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan untuk menolak Notis Permohonan Plaintif tersebut (Lampiran 3).
[4] Lanjutan itu, Mahkamah telah membatalkan Notis Rayuan Perayu (Lampiran 1) dengan kos sebanyak RM3,000.00 kepada Responden (Plaintif) tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.
[5] Pihak Perayu (Defendan) merasa tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini bertarikh 23 Disember 2025 tersebut di atas, dan telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh pada 19 Januari 2026 (Lampiran 14) untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang telah memutuskan untuk menolak Notis Permohonan Perayu (Defendan) (Lampiran 3) dan seterusnya membatalkan Notis Rayuan Perayu (Lampiran 1) dengan kos sebanyak RM3,000.00 kepada Responden (Plaintif) dalam kes ini tertakluk kepada bayaran fi alokatur.
[6] Seterusnya, bagi tujuan penyediaan alasan penghakiman di peringkat rayuan ini dan untuk kemudahan kesemua pihak, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk di dalam kapasiti mereka yang asal iaitu pihak Perayu akan dirujuk sebagai Defendan, manakala pihak Responden akan dirujuk sebagai Plaintif.
Bantahan Awal Responden Berkenaan Notis Permohonan Defendan
[7] Di dalam kes ini, Plaintif telah membangkitkan bantahan awal berkenaan Notis Permohonan Defendan [Lampiran 3] di perenggan 4 Afidavit Jawapan Responden [Lampiran 5], susulan kegagalan Defendan memperincikan peruntukan undang-undang yang ingin disandarkan oleh Defendan di dalam Notis Permohonan Defendan tersebut [Lampiran 3].
[8] Manakala, Defendan mendeposkan bahawa ianya bukan merupakan sesuatu yang mandatori untuk memperincikan peruntukan perundangan bagi sesuatu permohonan dan tanpa perincian peruntukan perundangan tersebut tidak menjadikan permohonan menjadi tidak teratur atau defektif.
[9] Merujuk kepada kes Foo Tseh Wan v. Toyota Tsusho (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] MLRHU 978; [2018] 9 MLJ 664; [2018] 4 CLJ 65; [2018] 8 AMR 41, yang mana Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes tersebut telah memutuskan seperti berikut:
No sufficient and/or correct intitulements in the first respondent's application
[39] In the notice of application filed before the sessions court, apart from citing that the matter was before the Special Corruption Sessions court, 'Mahkamah Sesyen Khas Rasuah', the arrest case number and
