PRAVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM DEVARAJAN SHIVAKUMAR

PRAVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM DEVARAJAN SHIVAKUMAR

The substituted service was made pursuant to an unset aside court order and therefore regular; defendants filed the application to set aside the default judgment after an inordinate unexplained delay of four years and failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence; although the court accepted that the plaintiff relied on newly discovered fraud facts (so limitation did not bar the claim), the delay and the defendants' knowledge of the proceedings fatally undermined their application. Hence the appeal was dismissed and the lower court's decision was upheld with costs.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-251-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: ARVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM; Appellant: PRAVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM; Respondent: DEVARAJAH SHIVAKUMAR
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 December 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-251-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Default Judgment / Judgment on Appeal (final Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision below upheld
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Substituted Service, Res Judicata / Functus Officio, Section 29 Limitation Act 1953 (fraud Exception), Resulting Trust, Delay and Inordinate Delay in Applications
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Equity (resulting Trust) Bankruptcy Law Limitation Law Fraud Setting Aside Default Judgment Substituted Service Res Judicata / Functus Officio +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM

Appellant

PRAVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM

Appellant

DEVARAJAH SHIVAKUMAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Default Judgment / Judgment on Appeal (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service was regular and default judgment valid
  2. 2 Whether defendants established an arguable/meritorious defence to set aside default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the claim is barred by res judicata or functus officio

Ratio Decidendi

The substituted service was made pursuant to an unset aside court order and therefore regular; defendants filed the application to set aside the default judgment after an inordinate unexplained delay of four years and failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence; although the court accepted that the plaintiff relied on newly discovered fraud facts (so limitation did not bar the claim), the delay and the defendants' knowledge of the proceedings fatally undermined their application. Hence the appeal was dismissed and the lower court's decision was upheld with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision below upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of Sessions Court dated 28.7.2022 upheld