XXXX ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH

XXXX ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH

The substituted service order was valid and the default judgment of 25.2.2015 was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for over ten years delay and failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence (did not deny receipt of deposit, provided no particulars of alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
22NCVC-400-08/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PRISTINE SEASON SDN BHD; Defendant: ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Case Number
22NCVC-400-08/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (specific Performance; Challenge to Default Judgment) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Extension of Time
Outcome
Interlocutory application (Kandungan 58) dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Substituted Service, Specific Performance, Extension of Time, Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Equity Land Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Substituted Service Specific Performance +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRISTINE SEASON SDN BHD

Plaintiff

ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (specific Performance; Challenge to Default Judgment) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment dated 25.2.2015 was obtained regularly
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a prima facie meritorious defence/triable issue
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time should be granted after a delay of over ten years

Ratio Decidendi

The substituted service order was valid and the default judgment of 25.2.2015 was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for over ten years delay and failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence (did not deny receipt of deposit, provided no particulars of alleged fraud, and took no action against solicitors alleged to have acted improperly); therefore extension of time and setting aside of the default judgment are refused and the interlocutory application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application (Kandungan 58) dismissed

Orders

  • Kandungan 58 dismissed with costs RM3,000.00 subject to allocator
  • No extension of time granted; default judgment dated 25.2.2015 stands