RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

Plaintiff's application for an order of assessment filed on 3 October 2025 was out of time relative to the mandatory one‑month period from the date of judgment (27 August 2025) under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012; no cogent reasons were shown to justify extension under Aturan 3 Kaedah 5, counsel's mistake is insufficient, and Aturan 1A cannot cure the breach of a mandatory rule; accordingly the application is dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-B54-78-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif: Ranjit Singh A/L Sadhu Singh; Defendan: Khoo Kah Jin
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Case Number
WA-B54-78-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil (assessment of Damages) / Application for Assessment of Damages and Extension of Time (reply to Preliminary Objection)
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of application (Kandungan 38) dismissed with costs; preliminary objection of defendant allowed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Mandatory Procedural Rules, Assessment of Damages, Rule 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012, Rule 1 a KKM 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Court Rules Extension of Time Mandatory Procedural Rules Assessment of Damages Rule 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012 Rule 1 a KKM 2012

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjit Singh A/L Sadhu Singh

Plaintif

Khoo Kah Jin

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil (assessment of Damages) / Application for Assessment of Damages and Extension of Time (reply to Preliminary Objection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to file a notice for assessment within one month under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012 is fatal
  2. 2 Whether the court may extend time under Aturan 3 Kaedah 5 absent cogent reasons
  3. 3 Whether Aturan 1A can cure non-compliance with a mandatory rule

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's application for an order of assessment filed on 3 October 2025 was out of time relative to the mandatory one‑month period from the date of judgment (27 August 2025) under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012; no cogent reasons were shown to justify extension under Aturan 3 Kaedah 5, counsel's mistake is insufficient, and Aturan 1A cannot cure the breach of a mandatory rule; accordingly the application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of application (Kandungan 38) dismissed with costs; preliminary objection of defendant allowed.

Orders

  • Notis Permohonan Plaintif di dalam Kandungan 38 ditolak dengan kos
  • Bantahan awal Defendan dibenarkan