NH Chan JCA:

[1] The plaintiff Vijayalakshmi, who is the respondent in this appeal, has brought this action by originating summons against her sister Saraswathy. It is necessary to reproduce the heading of the originating summons as it is important to be aware of the matters referred to in the summons. It is follows:

[2] In this originating summons, Vijayalakshmi applies for an order enjoining Saraswathy (who is an advocate and solicitor) and her law firm from acting for:

(1) Jegadevan in Case Nos 24-346-1992 and 22-61-1993, 02-175-1994, 02- 260-1994 and 02-483-1995;

(2) Suseela Devi in Case Nos 22-95-1993 and 22-54-1995;

(3) Shanti d/o Thiruchelvasegaram in Case No S2-22-562-1993; and

(4) any of the brothers and sisters of the defendant in any proceedings relating to the estate of Nadchatiram and of Nadchatiram Realties (1960) Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) where Vijayalakshmi is a party to the proceedings.

[Emphasis Added]

[3] The judge below granted all the orders sought against Saraswathy thus preventing her and her firm from acting in all the matters referred to in the order. Hence this appeal.

[4] Of all the five cases referred to in the heading of the originating summons, it is only in these five cases do the orders applied for have reference to them. They are:

(a) in the matter of Seremban High Court Civil Suit No: 24-346-1992 and 22-61-1993 where Vijayalakshmi is the plaintiff and Jegadevan is the defendant;

(b) in the matter of Seremban High Court Civil Suit No: 22-95-1993, where Vijayalakshmi is the plaintiff, and 22-54-1995, where Nadchatiram Realties (1960) Sdn Bhd is the plaintiff and Suseela Devi is the defendant in both cases; and

(c) in the matter of Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S2-22-562-1993 where Shanti d/o Thiruchelvasegaram is the plaintiff and Vijayalakshmi and her husband are the defendants.

[5] As for the other matters for which the orders are sought, they do not appear to have any connection with the cases referred to in the heading and should have been ignored by the judge in the Court below. Therefore, Vijayalakshmi by her originating summons may only seek to prevent Saraswathy from acting in the five cases, namely Case Nos: 24-346-1992, 22-61-1993, 22-95-1993, 22- 54-1995 and S2-22-562-1993, which appear in both the heading and the orders which are claimed. But, can she do that? As for Seremban High Court Civil Suit No: 22-54-1995, Vijayalakshmi is not even a party to the suit so that she has no locus standi to ask for any order against Saraswathy in that suit.

[6] We wish to take the opportunity here in this case to express our disapproval over the manner in which Jayalakshmi has brought this originating summons. The proper course is to make her applications about Saraswathy under their respective individual actions so that the relevancy of the application can be perceived immediately.By doing what she did in this case, Vijayalakshmi had, by lassoing in other matters, confused and, in actual fact, also misled the judge below into making the type of orders which he would not have made if he had been fully apprised of the situation.

[7] What then is Vijayalakshmi's cause of action against Saraswathy in the remaining four cases? She wants to have Saraswathy disqualified from acting for her brother Jegadevan in Seremban High Court Civil Suits Nos: 24-346- 1992 and 22-61-1993, her sister Suseela Devi in Seremban High Court Civil Suit No: 22-95-1993 and Shanti Thiruchelvasegaram in her suit (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S2-22-562-93) against Viiayalakshmi.

[8]Order 7 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980 ('the RHC') provides that every originating summons must include a statement of the questions on which the plaintiff seeks the determination or direction of the High Court or a concise statement of the relief or remedy claimed with sufficient particulars to identify the cause or causes of action in respect of which the plaintiff claims that relief or remedy.

[9] The instant originating summons does no