JUDGMENT

Mokhtar Sidin JCA:

The four appellants who are the defendants in the court below appealed against the decision of the learned trial judge of the High Court made on 17 December 1996. Originally at the High Court there were two civil suits, namely Civil Suit No. 22-90-1990 and Civil Suit No. 22-358-1994. In Civil Suit No: 22- 90-1990 the respondents, Mr. Seah Siang Mong, was the plaintiff and the 1st appellant, Mr. Ong Ban Chai, was the defendant. In Civil Suit No. 22-358- 1994, the respondent, was the plaintiff but there were five defendants, namely the four appellants in the present appeal and M/s Lim, Han & Teoh, a firm of advocates and solicitor (of which Mr. Y.Y. Han is senior partner), which is not a party in the present appeal. The learned trial judge gave decision in favour of the respondent and ordered, inter alia, one-half undivided share in the three lots of land which is the subject matter of this appeal (which was at the material time the half share that was transferred by the 1st appellant to the 4th appellant) be registered in the name of the respondent. It was also ordered that the 1st appellant to pay costs and damages to the respondent to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court.

The respondent filed cross-appeal seeking variations of the decisions of the learned judge as follows:

1. The learned judge's dismissal of the respondent's claim for damages for fraud and/or misrepresentation against the appellants and the 4th defendant and the order that the respondent bears the costs of the 4th defendant ought to be reversed; and

2. The learned judge's dismissal of the respondent's claim that the transfer of the subject property to the 4th appellant was in contravention of ss. 433B and 433C of the National Land Code 1965 and therefore null and void and ought to be reversed.

Fourth Defendant's Objection On Cross-appeal By The Respondent

At the hearing of this appeal which took place on 11 August 1997, the learned counsel for the 4th defendant, Mr. Khoo Eng Chin, raised a preliminary objection on the following grounds:

1. His clients are not involved in the appeal and would not be affected by the cross-appeal.

2. There was a specific finding made by the learned trial judge that the respondent had failed to prove his case against his clients and there is no appeal against that specific finding and the dismissal of the respondent's claim against his client's claim based on that specific finding.

3. Any reversal of the learned trial judge's dismissal of the respondent's claim for damages for fraud and/or misrepresentation against the 2nd and 3rd appellants would not affect the learned trial judge's dismissal of the respondent's claim against his client.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Arthur Lee Meng Kwang, contended that by serving the notice of cross-appeal on the 4th defendant, it had become a party to the appeal.

After hearing the submissions by both parties on the preliminary objection we upheld the preliminary objection by the 4th defendant and dismissed with costs the respondent's notice of cross-appeal against the 4th defendant which is not an appellant or a party to the present appeal. We could not find any reason why the 4th defendant should appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge who had given decision in favour of the 4th defendant. The appellants in their appeal did not cite the 4th defendant as a respondent or a party to the present appeal. Rule 8(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 reads as follows:

Rule 8.(1) It shall not be necessary for a respondent to give notice of appeal, but if a respondent intends, upon the hearing of the appeal, to contend that the decision of the High Court should be varied, he may at any time after entry of the appeal and not more than ten days after the service of him on the record of appeal, give notice of cross-appeal specifying the grounds thereof, to the appellant and any other party who may be affected by such n