JUDGMENT

Syed Ahmad Helmy JC:

The plaintiff by encl. 5 applied on 31 May 2001 and was granted ex partean interlocutory injunction upon the following terms:

(a)injunksi interlokutori untuk menahan dan menghalang pihak defendan sama ada dengannya sendiri atau melalui ejen atau pengkhidmatnya atau selainnya dari menghentikan operasi, perkhidmatan, servis, bekalan elektrik, bekalan air, perkhidmatan sekuriti, lampu, lif, tangga-bergerak dan pintu otomatik di bangunan yang dikenali sebagai Pacific Mall, Johor Bahru beralamat di Jalan Storey, 80300 Johor Bahru, Johor sehingga perintah selanjutnya;

(b)Plaintif-plaintif memberi suatu akujanji terhadap kerosakan pihak defendan (jika ada);

(c)Serahan perintah ini kepada pihak defendan dengan meninggalkan dan menampalkan di pintu hadapan satu salinan bermeterai perintah tersebut di alamat perniagaannya di Unit 3.16, Tingkat 3, Pacific Mall, Jalan Storey, 80300 Johor Bahru, Johor dan secara penampalan di pintu hadapan bangunan Pacific Mall, Jalan Storey, 80300 Johor Bahru, Johor adalah terpakai dan teratur terhadap defendan dan setiap orang pengarah-pengarah defendan secara peribadi;

(d)Kos permohonan dijadikan kos dalam kausa, dan

(e)Tarikh perbicaraan inter partesditetapkan pada 21 Jun 2001.

The hearing of the application by way of inter parteswas fixed on 21 June 2001.

At the inter parteshearing on 21 June 2001 the defendant who was represented by Mr. Wong Kok Leong advanced the argument that by reason of O. 29 r. 1(2B) RHC 1980 the ex parteinjunctive order granted on 31 May 2001 is only valid for 21 days and accordingly lapses on 20 June 2001. It is the defendant's contention that since the operative words in O. 29 r. 1(2B) RHC is "from the date on which it was granted" the reckoning of time for determination of 21 days when the ex parteinjunctive order lapses is to be calculated from the date when the injunction was granted namely 31 May 2001 and by reason thereof the date of 21 June 2001 fixed for inter parteshearing had exceeded the prescribed period by one day and hence there is no application before the court for inter parteshearing on 21 June 2001 as the ex parteinterlocutory injunction had lapsed on 20 June 2001. In support of his argument he relies and cited O. 42 r. 7 and the case of Elias bin Mooin & Anor v. Dato' Zainal Abidin bin Johari[1997] 3 CLJ 455 which prescribes that a judgment or order takes effect from the date of its order.

I have carefully considered the argument advanced by the defendant's counsel and have no hesitation in holding that the contention is without merits. Though O. 29 r. 1(2B) RHC talks of lapsing of the ex parteinjunctive order at the end of 21 days from the date on which it was granted the operative question is the calculation of time as to whether it is to be calculated from the date when the order was given. Under the Rules of the High Court 1980 reckoning periods of time is governed by O. 3 and r. 2(2) thereof clearly provides that "where the act is required to be done within a specified period after or from a specified date, the period begins immediately after that date". In the circumstances with respect I am unable to agree with the decision arrived at in Elias bin Mooin & Anor v. Dato' Zainal Abidin bin Johari[1997] 3 CLJ 455. It is my respectful view that O. 42 r. 7 RHC is correct so far as the date when a judgment or order takes effect - namely from date of pronouncement or making. Calculation of time has to be read against the respective rule that is sought to be construed and in the context of this case O. 29 r. 1(2B) RHC provides that the lapsing of the injunctive order, unless sooner revoked or set aside, shall be "at the end of 21 days from the date on which it is granted". Since the words used are "from the date on which it is granted" that "is the specified date" for purposes of calculation of time.

In this connection I would also allude to s. 54(1)(a) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) wherein it is expressly pro