Back
2026 MarsdenLR 672
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI – Appellant
Versus
M RAJENDRAN M SUPPURAYAN & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: JA-24NCvC-545-04/2025]
A party may only intervene in legal proceedings if they possess a direct legal or proprietary interest in the specific subject matter of that action. Where a court order is limited to movable assets, third parties claiming rights to immovable property lack standing to intervene or challenge the order collaterally.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) - Application for leave to intervene - Test for intervention - Requires legal or proprietary interest in the very subject matter of the action - An interest in something the action does not concern does not satisfy the test for intervention. (Paras 17, 21)
(B) Societies Act 1966 - Section 17, 17B - Vesting order - Scope of - Confined to movable property and assets of a dissolved society - Does not extend to reserve land held by trustees for a public purpose. (Paras 14, 16)
(C) Civil Procedure - Collateral challenge - Vesting order - An order of a court of competent jurisdiction is valid and binding until set aside - It cannot be impugned collaterally in other proceedings - An order is not a nullity as against a stranger whose rights it does not determine. (Paras 23, 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to intervene in an ex parte proceeding concerning the vesting of assets of a dissolved society to a new society. The applicants claimed to be administrators of the estate of a former trustee of land dedicated for a public purpose, asserting that the court-ordered vesting of assets improperly included the land in question. The former administrator, having been discharged by the order, raised a preliminary objection against the intervention.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the vesting order was explicitly limited to the movable property of the dissolved organization and did not, nor could it, capture the reserve land. Consequently, the applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal or proprietary interest in the subject matter, rendering the intervention unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the applicants could show a sufficient legal or proprietary interest in the subject matter of the action to be granted leave to intervene, and whether the vesting order constituted a nullity that could be challenged collaterally.
Ratio Decidendi: An intervenor must demonstrate a direct interest in the specific subject matter of the litigation. Where an order does not affect the property rights of a third party, that party lacks standing to intervene. Furthermore, an order that does not determine a party's rights cannot be considered a nullity against them, and collateral challenges to vested orders are impermissible.
Result: Application dismissed with costs, without prejudice to the applicants' right to initiate a properly constituted separate action regarding the land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context regarding society dissolution and vesting orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. procedural dispute over intervention, standing, and collateral attack. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. vesting order scope is limited to movable society property. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. test for intervention requires interest in subject matter. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. discharged dgi is not a proper respondent. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. dismissal of intervention without prejudice to separate action. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 7 — Application For Leave To Intervene)
Introduction
[1] This is a case about a temple which was built on a dedicated State land and held by trustees. The society that ran the temple was later struck off and the temple was administered by the Director General of Insolvency ("DGI"). The Court granted the DGI an order to transfer that property to a newly registered society and to discharge himself. In this application (Enclosure 7), two children of one of the original trustees now apply to intervene to enable them to apply to undo the order on the footing that it has taken away land belonging to their late father's estate rather than to the society. The DGI objects on the grounds that he is no longer the right party and that the order they complain of never touched the land at all. The question I have to decide is a narrow one:
"have the proposed interveners shown enough of an interest in what this case is actually about to be allowed in".
Background
[2] The society known as Rumah Berhala Sri Muniswaran, Tampoi, Johor Bahru, Johor was registered on 8 April 1970 under registration No: PPM-001-01-04081970. Its registration was cancelled by the Registrar of Societies on 29 May 2019 under s 13(1)(c)(iv) of the Societies Act 1966 [Act 832]. On cancellation, by operation of s 17(1)(a) of Act 832, the property of the society vested in the applicant, the Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi (the "DGI").
[3] On 14 July 2021 a new society, Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Aathi Sivan Muniswarar Thirukovil Johor Bahru, Johor [PPM-017-01-14072021] ("the new society"), was registered.
[4] The new society applied to the DGI for a vesting order under s 17B of Act 832. The DGI filed this Originating Summons (ex parte) on 29 April 2025. It was gazetted on 27 May 2025 and advertised in Utusan Malaysia (on 19 May 2025) and The Star (on 27 May 2025). On 10 July 2025 the High Court granted the order sought (encl 6) ("the vesting order").
[5] The proposed interveners are children of the late M. Suppurayan s/o Mandar, who died on 27 March 1986. The land which is the subject of their complaint is Lot 2144, Mukim Tebrau, District of Johor Bahru. By a declaration under s 62 of the National Land Code, gazetted in the Warta Kerajaan Negeri Johor (dated 6 December 1971 and published on 3 February 1972) [PTG. 640/61; PHTJB. 10/1/58], the land was reserved for a public purpose. It is a site for the Sri Muniswaran Temple, to be maintained by five named persons, the late M. Suppurayan s/o Mandar among them, as "trustees and their successors in office".
[6] The proposed interveners obtained a grant of administration of his estate dated 21 May 2024. They incorporated a company limited by guarantee, Sri Maha Siva Muniswaran Devasthanam Berhad, on 15 December 2024.
[7] Between 2024 and 2025 the proposed interveners, through their solicitors, wrote to the DGI asserting their status as administrators and trustees and asking that the temple property be handed to them. The DGI did not accede.
[8] The proposed interveners claimed that they learned of the vesting order only when the movable property was handed to the new society on or about 16 October 2025. They filed an application for judicial review on 17 December 2025, which they withdrew on 5 February 2026 on technical grounds, and then filed the present application.
The Preliminary Objection
[9] The proposed interveners apply und
