The court affirmed that the right to appeal is substantive but subject to statutory restrictions, particularly under the amended CJA 1964, which renders certain decisions non-appealable.

JUDGMENT

Azimah Omar JCA:

[1] The immediate Appeal before us concerns a simple matter but nonetheless, its determination here shall shed crucial light and certainty as to the Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in view of the recent amendment of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 ("CJA 1964")vide the insertion of the new limbs to s 68(1) of the CJA 1964 namely; ss 68(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the CJA 1964.

[2] For context, there are four (4) separate appeals filed before us by the parties who were dissatisfied with the decisions rendered by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 23 February 2023 in civil action WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017. The four appeals were namely:

(i) W-02(IM)(NCVC)-360-03/2023 ("Appeal 360") was an appeal filed by the Appellant ("Azinal Sdn Bhd"), who was the 6th Defendant in the High Court, against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23 February 2023 in dismissing its Application in encl 210 to strike out the Plaintiffs' claim ("Enclosure 210");

(ii) W-02(IM)(NCVC)-390-03/2023 ("Appeal 390") was an appeal filed by Azinal Sdn Bhd against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23 February 2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs' (Jannath Gani (P1), Shahul Hameed (P2), Shirin binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (P3)) Application in encl 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim;

(iii) W-02(IM)(NCVC)-451-03/2023 ("Appeal 451") was an appeal filed by the 2nd, 5th, 7th and 11th Defendants (Dr Abdul Rahman bin Datuk A.S Dawood (D2), Pasla Holdings Sdn Bhd (D5), Madah Pertama Sdn Bhd (D7) and Ikhwan Nasir bin Abdul Rahman (D11)) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23 February 2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs' Application in encl 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim; and

(iv) W-02(IM)(NCVC)-484-03/2023 ("Appeal 484") was an appeal filed by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants (Jamilah binti Sheikh Daud (D1), Mohamed Ibrahim bin Datuk A.S Dawood (D3), Naseem binti Mohamed Abdulla (D4)) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23 February 2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs' application in encl 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim.

[3] However, at the commencement of the hearing of these four appeals, Dato' M Pathmanathan, the counsel for the Appellant in Appeal 360 (Azinal Sdn Bhd) had requested that the Appellant be permitted to take Appeal 360 on its own and independently from the other three appeals. This, he requested on the ground that Appeal 360 was the only appeal filed against the learned Judge's decision to dismiss Azinal Sdn Bhd's Application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim. Meanwhile, all the other three appeals were Appeals filed against the learned Judge's decision to allow the respondents' (Plaintiffs') application to amend their Statement of Claim.

[4] Additionally, Dato' M Pathmanathan had informed us that the Respondents had raised a preliminary objection in their written submission in respect of the Appellant's Appeal 360 on the premise that Appeal 360 was an incompetent Appeal and should be struck out in limine.

[5] Mr Austen Pereira (the counsel for the Respondents) had admitted that the Respondents had indeed raised a preliminary objection that Appeal 360 was an incompetent Appeal in view of the recent inclusion of s 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964 which now deems the decision of the High Court (in dismissing a striking out application) to be a non-appealable decision of the High Court.

[6] Mr Austen Pereira further enlightened us on the underlying facts leading to the incompetency of the Appellant's Appeal 360. The Appellant had filed its striking out Application in encl 210 on 26 July 2022 and the parties had exchanged their respective Affidavits between July 2022 and September 2022. Written submissions in respect of the Striking Out Application were filed by the parties on 7 February 2023. Thereafter, the learned High Court Judge had dismissed the application on 23 February 2023. Enclosure 210 was filed by the Appellan