JUDGMENT

Hishamudin Yunus J:

[1] This is an application by the 1st plaintiff (Mexaland Development Sdn Bhd) by way of an ex parte summons in chambers (encl. 14) pursuant to s. 326(2) of the National Land Code 1965 for an order that a private caveat Presentation No. 831/2007 entered by the 1st plaintiff on 10 January 2007 in respect of land title held under H. S. (D) 112510, PT No. 2063, Mukim and District of Petaling, Selangor, belonging to the 1st defendant (Score Option Sdn Bhd) be extended until the settlement or final determination of this suit, or until such period this court deems fit.

[2] The present ex parte summons in chambers was filed on 2 July 2007 with a certificate of urgency. I heard this ex parte summons in chambers on 11 July 2007 and, after considering the written submission of counsel, had dismissed the application on 16 July 2007. The reason for the dismissal was that, firstly, the application should not have been made by way of an ex parte application: it should have been inter parte ; and, secondly, the applicant/1st plaintiff does not have a caveatable interest.

[3] The 1st plaintiff had entered the caveat pursuant to a clause (cl. 6) of a joint-venture cum project management agreement ('the JV agreement') dated 22 February 2006. The 1st plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant are parties to the JV agreement. Under this JV agreement the 1st defendant as the landowner and the 2nd defendant as the developer have jointly agreed to appoint the 1st plaintiff as the project manager to manage the development of the land.

[3] The 1st plaintiff, pursuant to cl. 6.1 of the JV agreement, entered the caveat on 10 January 2007. Clause 6.1 reads:

6.1 The Project Manager shall be entitled at the Project Manager's own costs and expenses to present and register a private caveat against the said Land binding only on the Project Land for the purposes of protecting the Project Manager's interest in the Project Land arising from this Agreement prior to the completion or lawful termination of this Agreement Provided That ....

[5] As a result of a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants, on 16 May 2007, the plaintiffs took out a writ action (that is, the present action) against the defendants alleging breach of the JV agreement by the 1st and 2nd defendants and seeking a declaration that any contract entered into between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants relating to the said land defendant is void. There is also a claim for the specific performance of the JV agreement.

[6] Meanwhile, the 1st defendant took steps to have the caveat removed. On 21 May 2007 the District Land Administrator served on the 1st plaintiff a Form 19C notice pursuant to s. 326(1A) of the National Land Code , notifying the 1st plaintiff of the registrar's intention to remove the caveat within two months of the service of the said notice - unless the life of the caveat is extended by an order of the court. As a consequence, the 1st plaintiff filed the present summons in chambers on 2 July 2007 with a view to obtaining the court order.

[7] Subsections (1B) and (2) of s. 326 of the National Land Code 1965 states:

(1B) In the case in which a notice of intended removal in Form 19C has been served under subsection (1A), the caveat shall lapse and be of no effect at the expiry of two months specified in the notice unless before the expiry of that period the Registrar shall have been served with an order of the court extending the time provided in the said notice.

(2) The court may, on the application of any person or body on whom such a notice has been served under subsection (1A) (and acting, if the circumstances so require, ex parte ), from time to time extend the said period of two months; and the Registrar, on being duly served with an order of the court under this subsection, shall make an endorsement on the register document of title of the date of service on him of the order and of the period of the extension, and shall sign a