JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

The Summons In Chambers In encl. 26

[1] This was the defendant's application and in this enclosure the defendant sought for the following prayers:

(a) that execution on the order dated 30 August 2006 against the defendant be stayed pending the hearing and disposal of the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal;

(b) that all further proceedings pursuant to the said order dated 30 August 2006 and the originating summons no: S6-24-1015-2006 be stayed pending the hearing and disposal of the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal;

(c) that such other reliefs may be granted or other conditions imposed as this Honourable Court deems fit; and

(d) that the costs of this application be costs in the cause.

[2] Basically, encl. 26 sought for a stay of execution of my order dated 30 August 2006 in relation to enclosure one (1) pending the hearing and disposal of the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal. I have since written a judgment in regard to enclosure one (1) and it has not been reported as yet.

[3] Again, by way of encl. 26, the defendant sought for a stay of all further proceedings pertaining to my order in relation to enclosure one (1) and the defendant too sought for a stay of the originating summons no: S6-24-1015-2006.

[4] In my written judgment in regard to enclosure one (1) (hereinafter referred to as the "first judgment"), I focussed myself to only two enclosures, namely, enclosures one (1) and two (2) without much ado.

What Are The Grounds Relied Upon By The Defendant In Order To Obtain A Stay?

[5] The defendant relied on the following grounds in order to seek a stay:

(a) there are special circumstances for the application in encl. 26 in that matters have occurred and/or new evidence emerged since the order of this court in regard to enclosure one (1) which would render it inequitable and unjust that the said order should be carried into effect;

(b) the plaintiff in the course of the proceedings for assessment of damages for the balance of the plaintiff's claim in originating summons no: S6-24-1015-2006 has for the first time disclosed two (2) valuation reports which prove that the plaintiff as the purchaser of the property - a pre-war double storey shophouse at no: 47, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur, had renovated and up-graded the old pre-war building and wrongfully claimed expenses for the same from the defendant as the vendor;

(c) the plaintiff in its originating summons no: S6-24-1015-2006 and in its supporting affidavit (that would be enclosure two (2)) had failed to disclose a material p. 24 comprising of PART 12 of the sale and purchase agreement which substantially negates the basis of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and which would confer upon the defendant a valid and substantive defence against the plaintiff's claim;

(d) the plaintiff had failed to prove its claim for special damages and misled this court by stating that it had exhibited receipts when in fact it only disclosed invoices without receipts and without any other evidence of payment;

(e) there are merits in the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal; and

(f) in all the circumstances, the defendant invokes the inherent powers of this court to make the necessary orders to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court by the plaintiff.

The Factual Background

[6] I have set out the facts in the first judgment. A little repetition would do some good. Now, the plaintiff as the purchaser and the defendant as the vendor entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 22 March 2002 in respect of the property. The plaintiff paid the full purchase price of RM4,995,000 on 15 December 2002. The plaintiff claimed that when vacant possession of the property was delivered by the defendant on 1 May 2003 its condition was not the same as on the date of execution of the sale and purchase agreement.

[7] The plaintiff in enclosure one (1) claimed for the sum of RM394,000 as special dam