Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Filing of Application Post-Decision - The sources indicate that after a court has determined an originating summons (OS) in favor of the plaintiff, with the counterclaim dismissed, the defendant may still file notices or applications related to the same matter, but these are typically subject to procedural rules and timing constraints. For example, the defendant subsequently withdrew this striking out application and decided to focus on opposing the Originating Summons instead ["
JOSEPH IRUTHAYAM vs CHANG YOON FOO - High Court
"], suggesting that defendants can continue to engage with the case through applications or notices even after a judgment.Timing and Procedural Constraints - The ability of the defendant to file new notices or applications after several months depends on the court's discretion and procedural rules. The courts have allowed postponements, adjournments, and the filing of supplementary affidavits over extended periods, as seen in the Originating Summons was heard on 27 February 2025 ["
PUBLIC BANK BERHAD vs KOK KON SANG - High Court
"] and the Court allowed a postponement of the hearing ["PUBLIC BANK BERHAD vs KOK KON SANG - High Court
"]. This indicates that delays do not necessarily bar subsequent applications, provided they are made within the court's procedural framework.Counterclaims in Originating Summons - The courts recognize that defendants can file counterclaims in OS proceedings, especially if they have entered an appearance. A defendant to an action begun by originating summons who has entered an appearance... who alleges that he has any claim or is entitled to any relief or remedy against the plaintiff [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2006_3_MLRH_458). However, the success of such counterclaims depends on their timely filing and compliance with procedural rules.
Main Point and Conclusion - Given the procedural flexibility demonstrated in the sources, the defendant can file notices or applications in this case after several months, provided they adhere to court rules and the case's procedural history. The courts have shown willingness to entertain applications and amendments even after significant delays, as long as they are justified and filed properly ["
Tetuan Teh Kim Teh Salina & Co (a firm) vs Tan Kau Tiah @ Tan Ching Hai & Anor
"].References:- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_SSLR_2017_2_SSLR_98)- ["
MA SUAN TONG vs UOB KAY HIAN PTE LTD & ANOR; MA BOON LAN (THIRD PARTY) - High Court
"]- ["MA SUAN TONG vs UOB KAY HIAN PTE LTD & ANOR; MA BOON LAN (THIRD PARTY) - High Court
"]- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2017_4_MLRH_269)- ["MA SUAN TONG vs UOB KAY HIAN PTE LTD & ANOR; MA BOON LAN (THIRD PARTY) - High Court
"]- ["Tetuan Teh Kim Teh Salina & Co (a firm) vs Tan Kau Tiah @ Tan Ching Hai & Anor
"]- ["PUBLIC BANK BERHAD vs KOK KON SANG - High Court
"]- ["JOSEPH IRUTHAYAM vs CHANG YOON FOO - High Court
"]- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2006_3_MLRH_458)
When a court issues a in a legal case, it often marks the conclusion of the dispute. However, questions sometimes arise about whether a defendant can still file a or other after a significant period has passed. This blog explores the legal principles surrounding such situations, focusing on the case where an was determined on in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendant's dismissed.
In , the typically signifies the end of the case, establishing the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Once a court has made a final decision, the general rule is that no further applications or motions can be filed to reopen or alter the judgment unless specific legal grounds exist, such as an , , or .
The core question here is: Can the defendant file a in this action after several months? The answer depends on procedural rules, the nature of the application, and the court’s discretion.
Courts emphasize the importance of procedural compliance and timeliness. Applications for , , or other notices must be made within prescribed timeframes supported by [
#LegalAdvice #CourtProcedures #LegalInsights
(2) There shall be served with every third party notice a copy of the Writ or originating summons by which the action was begun and of the pleadings, if any, served in the action. ... amicable settlement of the said Originating Summons (encl 1). ... r 3) and serve it on the 2nd defendant within 10 days; (3) That the 2nd defendant shall file into Court his Defence and Counterclaim. ... [4] Initi....
out and/or dismissed" by Ma's application alone as against the plaintiff. ... the plaintiff to negotiate for the amicable settlement of the said Originating Summons (encl 1). ... r 3) There shall be served with every third party notice a copy of the writ or originating summons by which action was begun and of the leadings, if any, served in the action." ... (2) There shall be served with every th....
out and/or dismissed" by Ma's application alone as against the plaintiff. ... be served with every third party notice a copy of the writ or originating summons by which action was begun and of the leadings, if any, served in the action." ... contacted the plaintiff to negotiate for the amicable settlement of the said Originating Summons (encl 1). ... (2) There shall be served with every third par....
dismissed" by Ma's application alone as against the plaintiff. ... amicable settlement of the said Originating Summons (encl 1). ... (2) There shall be served with every third party notice a copy of the Writ or originating summons by which the action was begun and of the pleadings, if any, served in the action. ... r 3) and serve it on the 2nd defendant within 10 days; (3) That....
served with every third party notice a copy of the writ or originating summons by which action was begun and of the leadings, if any, served in the action." ... (2) There shall be served with every third party notice a copy of the Writ or originating summons by which the action was begun and of the pleadings, if any, served in the action. ... [5] Pending the disposal of this said Originating #HL....
The 1st defendant in turn made a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the release of the 1st defendant's fixed deposit funds. The High Court decided in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant's counterclaim was accordingly dismissed. ... [97] This appeal brings into sharp focus the question of whether the defendant (like the appellant at hand) in an action begun by originating summons f....
The plaintiff filed the instant action in the Kota Kinabalu High Court to set aside the award on 10 November 2017. ... The arbitrator dismissed the claim of the plaintiff and allowed the counterclaim of the defendant in the sum of RM23,432,463.54. The plaintiff did not comply with the award. ... It is an application to set aside in whole or in part an arbitration award that was made in favour of t....
summons or notice of application if rr 1 and 3 are not satisfied; (2) Decide the merits of the application summarily (r 5(2)). ... The 1st defendant in turn made a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the release of the 1st defendant's fixed deposit funds. The High Court decided in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant's counterclaim was accordingly dismissed. ... enforce the award; (c)....
The first defendant in turn made a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the release of the first defendant’s fixed deposit funds. The High Court decided in favour of the second defendant. The first defendant’s counterclaim was accordingly dismissed. ... [97] This appeal brings into sharp focus the question of whether the defendant (like the appellant at hand) in an action begun by originating summons#H....
The first defendant in turn made a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the release of the first defendant’s fixed deposit funds. The High Court decided in favour of the second defendant. The first defendant’s counterclaim was accordingly dismissed. ... [97] This appeal brings into sharp focus the question of whether the defendant (like the appellant at hand) in an action begun by originating summons#H....
27. Furthermore, in Originating Summons No.171 of 2009, later numbered as Suit No.1932 of 2008, filed by the present defendant no.1-Jehangir, the prayers included the question for determination raised by the defendant no.1 herein (plaintiff in the Originating Summons No.171 of 2009). Some of the questions raised were as follows :- (a) Whether the 'residue', as contemplated and dedicated to the 'Settled Fund', by the deceased amba Wadia under clause 19 of the said Will, is limited to the portion of the deceased amba Wadia's estate (being the securities and investments expres....
Defendant no.3 alone has been fighting legal battle against defendant no.10 for the last 25 years and got possession. However, appeal against the said judgment was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and defendant no.10 was directed to hand over the physical vacant possession to Bhupinder Singh defendant no.3. RSA no.560 of 1992 was filed by defendant no.10 in which plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 filed an application for their substitution with defendant no.3 but the same was dismissed. Later on, RSA was also dismissed on 6.4.2005 and defendant....
It is contended by the defendant in the correspondence that the plaintiffs have committed breach of the terms of lease agreement which contention is disputed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has already threatened to take action against the plaintiff prior to plaintiffs filing this originating summons.
The defendant first entered appearance in the case on 3rd May, 2005. (ii) In the case of Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. Rajesh Chopra and Others, (2007) 35 PTC 59 the Delhi High Court in the facts of the case observed in para 75 thus: 75. It is noteworthy that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on or about 7th March, 2005, this Court had issued summons in the suit and notice in the application by orders passed on 10th March 2005 and the defendant was duly served with the same. The application seeking cancellation of the registered trademark GEODON and ZOLOFT of the plain....
The defendant first entered appearance in the case on 3rd May, 2005. It is noteworthy that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on or about 7th March, 2005, this Court had issued summons in the suit and notice in the application by orders passed on 10th March, 2005 and the defendant was duly served with the same. The application seeking cancellation of the registered trademark GEODON and ZOLOFT of the plaintiff was filed by the defendant on 29th November, 2005.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
