CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

Leave to execute the consent judgment was properly granted because the triggering event (sale of the property) occurred in 2025 so there was no undue delay; the Rules expressly allow ex parte applications for leave to execute after six years (Order 46 r.2-3); the dispute concerns compliance with clear terms of the consent judgment entitling the plaintiff to excess sale proceeds, not indefeasibility of title; laches did not apply as the plaintiff applied promptly after the auction.

Citation
22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH; Defendant: KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Case Number
22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement of Consent Judgment / Application to Set Aside Leave to Execute Consent Judgment After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside the leave to execute the consent judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Consent Judgment, Leave to Execute After Six Years, Ex Parte Applications, Indefeasibility of Title, Laches, Natural Justice
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Limitation Law Execution of Judgment Consent Judgment Leave to Execute After Six Years Ex Parte Applications +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH

Plaintiff

KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement of Consent Judgment / Application to Set Aside Leave to Execute Consent Judgment After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ex parte leave to execute a consent judgment after six years was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether enforcement is barred by limitation or laches
  3. 3 Whether defendant's indefeasible registered title defeats plaintiff's claim to sale proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to execute the consent judgment was properly granted because the triggering event (sale of the property) occurred in 2025 so there was no undue delay; the Rules expressly allow ex parte applications for leave to execute after six years (Order 46 r.2-3); the dispute concerns compliance with clear terms of the consent judgment entitling the plaintiff to excess sale proceeds, not indefeasibility of title; laches did not apply as the plaintiff applied promptly after the auction.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside the leave to execute the consent judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's application to set aside the leave to execute the consent judgment is dismissed.
  • Costs of RM2,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.