BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (trading under the name and style of BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (Registration No.: JM0105634-U) MOHD SEHAT BIN MAHMUD

BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (trading under the name and style of BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (Registration No.: JM0105634-U) MOHD SEHAT BIN MAHMUD

The Magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing leave because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons for delay beyond the six-year limitation; the unexplained delay amounted to laches and the application constituted an abuse of process; appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff in Magistrate Court): Bhajan Singh A/L Parkash Singh; Respondent (defendant in Magistrate Court): Mohd Sehat bin Mahmud
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 September 2021
Case Number
JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court) From Magistrate Court) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal; Decision Dated 1 September 2021
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave for Execution, Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012, Order 46 Rule 3 Rules of Court 2012, Doctrine of Laches, Abuse of Process, Limitation Act 1953
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Execution Limitation Equity Appeal Leave for Execution Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012 Order 46 Rule 3 Rules of Court 2012 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhajan Singh A/L Parkash Singh

Appellant (plaintiff in Magistrate Court)

Mohd Sehat bin Mahmud

Respondent (defendant in Magistrate Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court) From Magistrate Court) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal; Decision Dated 1 September 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012 was complied with
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte application is barred by the doctrine of laches and/or is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing leave because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons for delay beyond the six-year limitation; the unexplained delay amounted to laches and the application constituted an abuse of process; appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent