NAMACHIVAYAM SELVARAJA (PASPORT INDIA NO: Z1807604) NARAYANASAMY A/L KRISHNAN (NO. K/P: 520126-07-5569)

NAMACHIVAYAM SELVARAJA (PASPORT INDIA NO: Z1807604) NARAYANASAMY A/L KRISHNAN (NO. K/P: 520126-07-5569)

The Court exercised its discretion not to strike out the appeal for procedural non-compliance because the omissions caused no prejudice and could be cured; on the merits the Court held the defendant deliberately and consciously absented from the trial on 4 April 2018, the trial judge properly proceeded and accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence, and therefore the application to set aside the judgment after trial lacked merit; appeal dismissed with costs RM4,000 (subject to 4% allocator).

Citation
PA-12ANCC-13-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Namachivayam Selvaraja; Respondent/plaintiff: Narayanasamy a/l Krishnan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
PA-12ANCC-13-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Set Aside Judgment After Trial, Default Judgment, Procedural Non Compliance, Record of Appeal, Absence From Trial
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Civil Law Appeals Set Aside Judgment After Trial Default Judgment Procedural Non Compliance Record of Appeal Absence From Trial

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Namachivayam Selvaraja

Appellant/defendant

Narayanasamy a/l Krishnan

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Hearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with Order 55 r5 Rules of Court 2012 and defective Record of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether delay and omissions in filing the supplementary Record of Appeal justify striking out
  3. 3 Whether a judgment entered after a full trial can be set aside where the defendant was absent and whether the absence was deliberate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion not to strike out the appeal for procedural non-compliance because the omissions caused no prejudice and could be cured; on the merits the Court held the defendant deliberately and consciously absented from the trial on 4 April 2018, the trial judge properly proceeded and accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence, and therefore the application to set aside the judgment after trial lacked merit; appeal dismissed with costs RM4,000 (subject to 4% allocator).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 34 dismissed with no order as to costs
  • Appeal dismissed with costs RM4,000.00 payable by the Appellant (subject to 4% allocator to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent)