CHOONG NAM FATHER & SONS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. CHARERN PROPERTIES SDN BHD
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
MOSES SUSAYAN JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: AA-22NCvC-22-03-2021]
14 DECEMBER 2023
[2024] CLJ JT (1)

Abstract – By interpreting the Rules of Court 2012 (‘ROC’) in their true spirit, which is to ensure justice and fairness, an application to extend a writ’s validity, especially when it is a sincere pursuit of justice supported by continuous proactive actions, emerges as not only legitimate but also a necessary step in ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld. Interpreting O. 6 r. 7(2) of the ROC as imposing an absolute limit on the number of renewals diverges from the rule’s intended purpose. Such a rigid interpretation could inadvertently impair the administration of justice rather than facilitate it. It risks penalising diligent litigants who, despite their efforts, are unable to serve the writ due to factors beyond their control.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ of summons – Extension of – Application for – Application for extension after writ’s validity period – Judgment in default and order for substituted service obtained set aside after writ’s validity period – Whether legal action promptly initiated and proactive approach was taken by seeking to extend writ’s validity – Whether court in position to exercise discretionary power to extend writ under O. 6 r. 7(2) of Rules of Court 2012 (‘ROC’) – Whether court should prioritise overriding interest of justice over technical non-compliance – Whether court ought to exercise inherent jurisdiction under O. 92 r. 4 of ROC – Whether court should retain inherent power to extend writ beyond limit expressly set out by O. 6 r. 7(2) to prevent injustice – Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 3 r. 5
read more