JUDGMENT

Lim Beng Choon J:

This was an application made by the 65 defendants by way of notice of motion to set aside the order of possession granted by this Court on 2 May 1989 in respect of the land held under H.S. (D) 18315 P.T. NO. 22712 Mukim of Ampang Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed land") of which the plaintiff was and still is the registered proprietor. Alternatively the defendants prayed that the execution of the said order of possession be stayed pending the outcome of the action vide Originating Motion No. 25-1-1989 filed between one Ismail bin Ahmad and 103 others against the plaintiff and two others in the High Court at Shah Alam.

Before I proceed to deal with the motion of the 65 defendants it is useful to give a brief account of the events that led to the defendants making this application.

On 9 March 1989, the plaintiff applied by way of originating summons for an order that the plaintiff be allowed to recover possession of the disputed land on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to possession and that the defendants are in occupation without licence or consent. The affidavit in support of its application was affirmed by one Mohd. Shefak bin Isa on 9 March 1988. I need only to reproduce the pertinent averments made by the deponent of that affidavit. He averred that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the disputed land and that originally there were 117 occupiers and/or owners of squatter buildings and/or structures illegally constructed on the disputed land and had been residing thereat without the consent or authority of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was desirous of developing the disputed land into a housing estate and had obtained the necessary approval dated 10 August 1988 from the Pejabat Tanah Daerah Ulu Langat to do so. In the circumstances the plaintiff therefore tried to negotiate with the 117 squatters by making certain offers to them. One hundred twelve of the squatters accepted the offers and vacated the land but the 65 defendants refused to do so. The defendants filed in their joint memorandum of appearance on 24 April 1989 through their former solicitors M/s Khairuddin & Associates.

The plaintiff's application came up for hearing on 27 April 1989. At the hearing Encik Azizan Othman the then Counsel for the defendants asked for a postponement in order to get instructions from the defendants. The matter was postponed to 2 May 1989. At the resumed hearing of the plaintiff's application on 2 May 1989 Encik Azizan Othman informed the Court he had no instruction to contest the application. After hearing submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff and reading the affidavit of Encik Mohd. Shefak I granted an order in terms of the application. The order was duly extracted on 24 May 1989.

Subsequently the defendants consulted and appointed a firm of solicitors known as M/s. Khana & Co. which firm filed in a notice of change of solicitors on 20 July 1989 and on the same day through their new solicitors the defendants filed in the Notice of Motion which I have mentioned earlier. In the affidavit in support of the motion affirmed by one of the defendants, Ahmad bin Shahlan, he said that he was authorised to affirm and filed the affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of all the defendants except defendants No. 2, 13, 20, 23, 24, 25, 34 and 48 who were no more residing on the disputed land. Defendant No. 6 apparently had accepted the offers of the plaintiff and was no longer interested in the matter. Again I need only to set out the pertinent averments of the deponent of this affidavit. He averred that his former solicitors on record had informed his present solicitors that they had instruction only to obtain more time to enable the defendants to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff. It was for that reason that his former solicitors did not oppose the application for possession made by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff issued