JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

[1] I wrote the first judgment dated 4 December 2002 and it has since been reported videCekal Berjasa Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2003] 1 AMR 553 (hereinafter referred to as the "first judgment"). That first judgment concerned an originating summons in encl. one (1) filed by the plaintiff and it focussed entirely on it. I favoured the defendant in the first judgment and this meant that the plaintiff's application in the originating summons in encl. one (1) was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by my decision, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Court of Appeal with a coram of Gopal Sri Ram, Abdul Kadir bin Sulaiman and Nik Hashim bin Nik Ab. Rahman JJCA, on 12 October 2004, the Court of Appeal made an order that the appeal be referred back to me for me to decide on the issue of the defendant's counterclaim. The order of the Court of Appeal in its original text reads as follows:

KORAM:

Y.A DATO' GOPAL SRI RAM, H.M.R.

Y.A DATO' HAJI ABDUL KADIR BIN SULAIMAN, H.M.R.

Y.A DATO' BENTARA ISTANA DATO' NIK HASHIM

BIN NIK AB. RAHMAN, H.M.R.

DALAM MAHKAMAH TERBUKA

PADA 12 OKTOBER, 2004

PERINTAH

ATAS RAYUAN Perayu yang dinamakan di atas DAN SETELAH MEMBACA Rekod Rayuan, Hujahan Perayu bertarikh 4hb. Oktober, 2004 serta Autoriti Perayu, Autoriti Perayu II, Ringkasan Penghujahan Kes Responden dan Ikatan Autoriti Responden bertarikh 4hb Oktober, 2004 DAN SETELAH MENDENGAR Tuan Haji Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer, peguam bagi pihak Perayu dan Encik Nadzarin Wok Nordin (Encik Sahidi Bin Mohamad bersamanya), peguam bagi pihak Responden MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa tuntutan balas dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk diputuskan oleh Y.A. Hakim DAN ADALAH JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Perayu diberi kebebasan untuk meminda Memorandum Rayuan tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah Rayuan setelah menerima keputusan Y.A Hakim DAN ADALAH SETERUSNYA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Rayuan ini ditangguhkan ke satu tarikh yang akan ditetapkan sementara menunggu keputusan Y.A Hakim terhadap tuntutan balas tersebut DAN ADALAH AKHIRNYA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa kos ditangguhkan.

DIBERI di bawah tandatangan saya dan Meterai Mahkamah pada 12 Oktober, 2004

t.t.

...

PENOLONG KANAN PENDAFTAR

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

PUTRAJAYA

[2] The parties informed me that before the Court of Appeal they have not addressed their Lordships on the issue of whether there is a valid and enforceable counterclaim, at law, for the trial judge (referring to myself) to decide on the issue of the counterclaim.

[3] Dutifully, I heard the submissions of the parties in regard to the purported counterclaim as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The First Judgment

[4] The facts of this case have been set out in the first judgment and I do not propose to repeat them here again. Suffice for me to say that in the first judgment at pp. 571-572 of the report, I made reference to the counterclaim that was averred in the affidavit in reply of the defendant which portrayed that the defendant intended to seek a counterclaim against the plaintiff. This was what I wrote in the first judgment:

There is another matter that I should allude to. It is this. The affidavit in reply of Muhammad Syafi'i bin Gampang as seen in enclosure 4 shows categorically that the defendant intends to seek a counterclaim against the plaintiff for:

(a) a declaration that the defendant need not pay the plaintiff the compensation awarded on the ground that the project has been cancelled and the defendant has issued a notice of cancellation of the said project to the plaintiff;

(b) alternatively, an order pursuant to Order 92, rule 4 of the RHC to the effect that the compensation awarded by the District Land Administrator be cancelled on the grounds as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit in reply in enclosure 4;

(c) costs; and

(d) any other order or relief which this court thinks fit.

[5] All these prayers can be seen at para 12 of encl. 4. Later on in the