JUDGMENT

Abdul Hamid Embong J:

Enclosure 10 is an application by the intervener, Lingkaran Cemerlang SB (LC) to be enjoined as a second defendant in this suit, pursuant to O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) of the Rules of High 1980 (RHC) or under its inherent power.

On 1 August 2001 this Court had allowed the plaintiff on its ex parte application, an interim injunction restraining the defendant from paying out or causing to be paid out any monies deposited into its Housing Development Account (HDA account) in respect of the development of a housing project known as Taman Raja Ekram (the project) or to deal with or dispose or encumber the monies available in the HDA account until disposal of this suit. That ex parte injunction has now been extended till 12 October 2001, being the date fixed for arguments inter partes .

Briefly the facts are as follows. Plaintiff is the registered owner of land known as Lot 70065 Mukim Ulu Kinta. On 14 April 1986 the plaintiff entered into a joint venture agreement with one Syarikat Perumahan Sejati SB (Sejati) to develop the land into a housing estate. On 18 April 1996, Sejati assigned all their rights by a deed of novation cum assignment to the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to construct and complete the balance of 344 units of single storey houses, 121 units of double storey shophouses and further to develop 5.32 acres of the land into a commercial area. The houses and shophouses were to be completed within 24 months from December 1998. The project however faced problems, and its completion was delayed. The plaintiff gave the defendant a number of extensions to complete the project. On 22 May 2001 the plaintiff terminated the joint venture agreement and demanded that the defendant stopped all work immediately.

On 19 July 1997 by a turnkey agreement, the defendant appointed a turnkey contractor ie, one LSSB to build and complete the 65 units under phase 1B of the project. Under that turnkey agreement the defendant would receive 30% of the 65 units whilst LSSB would get 44 units ie, 70%. Subsequently, on 24 April 2000, LSSB and another company ie, Pembinaan Alaf Cemerlang Sdn Bhd entered into a joint venture agreement to build the 65 units on a 50-50 sharing basis of the 44 units given to LSSB under its turnkey contract with the defendant. A new company ie, L.C. the intended intervener was set up under that joint venture agreement to complete phase 1B of the project.

According to LC the 65 units built under phase 1B are now almost completed and awaiting approval from Lembaga Air Perak before certificates of occupation (OC) are issued by the local authority. LC had also incurred expenditure in undertaking the building works and various payments made to government departments and other authorities. On 9 June 2001, pursuant to the termination of the contract by the plaintiff, LC's representatives and workers were stopped from entering the project site and as such could not finish the remaining works. LC also stated in support of this application that the temporary freezing of the HDA account by the plaintiff had prejudiced its rights and interest since LC had a legal interest in phase 1B and is responsible to the defendant under the turnkey agreement to deliver vacant possession of the 65 units to it. It was not disputed that the HDA account was opened and maintained for the purpose of phase 1B. Since some units in phase 1B have been sold and part payments have been made into the HDA account, LC, with the freezing of that account is unable to draw out the monies to make various payments to its suppliers and workers. Also it was contended that the plaintiff itself as the registered landowner and a party to the sale and purchase agreements with the house purchasers was aware that the completion dates of the houses under phase 1B is no earlier than November 2001, and not by 31 December 2000 as contended by the plaintiff. It was also contended that the plaintiff had induced LC to extend the completion dates. As suc