BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT

BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT

The court refused the ex-parte application for leave because the plaintiff failed to comply with Order 46 r.3 by not providing sufficient explanation or evidence of steps taken to enforce the judgment within the six-year period, filed the application only after the six years lapsed without justifying the delay, and thus the court exercised its discretion to deny leave.

Citation
TA-A52M-85-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif: BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD; Defendan: MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 December 2025
Case Number
TA-A52M-85-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Leave to Issue Writ of Execution Under Order 46 R.3 Rules of Court 2012 / Sessions Court Decision on Ex Parte Application (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Notis Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 7) dismissed; leave to issue writ refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Issue Writ of Execution, Order 46 R.3 RO C 2012 Compliance, Enforcement of Judgment, Delay/laches, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Banking Debt Recovery Civil Procedure Limitation Law Leave to Issue Writ of Execution Order 46 R.3 RO C 2012 Compliance Enforcement of Judgment +2 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

Plaintif

MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Issue Writ of Execution Under Order 46 R.3 Rules of Court 2012 / Sessions Court Decision on Ex Parte Application (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to issue writ should be granted after six years have lapsed
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's affidavit satisfied O.46 r.3 requirements (amounts and reasons for delay)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff took sufficient steps to enforce the judgment within the six-year period

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the ex-parte application for leave because the plaintiff failed to comply with Order 46 r.3 by not providing sufficient explanation or evidence of steps taken to enforce the judgment within the six-year period, filed the application only after the six years lapsed without justifying the delay, and thus the court exercised its discretion to deny leave.

Court Disposition

Notis Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 7) dismissed; leave to issue writ refused

Orders

  • Notis Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 7) dismissed without costs