Parties to a Civil Action

Joinder
 O. 15 R. 4, 5 ROC

Misjoinder @ Non-joinder
 O. 15 R. 6 ROC (with permission of original litigants)
o Malite Sdn. Bhd. v. Abdul Karim bin Gendut & Ors.1 [1981] 2 MLJ 29, Pg. 30
 “Leaving out the Joinder would not lead to a complete determination and
adjudication of the matter pertaining to the sale and purchase of this land.
We therefore feel that this is a proper case in which the Ct should exercise its
discretion, mindful of the principle that all parties ought to be brought before
the Ct so that their rights and liabilities may be determined in one action
instead of in several.”
o Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustaffa v. Heng Cheng Hong2 [1993] 2 MLJ 143, Pg. 153
 “Insofar as the power of the Ct to add a Defendant on the application of the
Defendant against the wishes of the Plaintiff is concerned, the jurisdiction of
the Ct is entirely discretionary … The Plaintiff cannot be forced, upon the
application of the Defendant, to have a second Defendant added, against
whom he does not wish to proceed for the reason that the negligence of the
intended second Defendant is not an issue involved in the claim he has
made.”

Intervention
 O. 15 R. 6 ROC (without permission of original litigants)
o Pegang Mining Co. Ltd. v. Choong Sam & Ors.3 [1969] 2 MLJ 52, Pg. 56
 “In their Lordships’ view one of the principal objects of the rule is to enable
the Court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be
affected by its judgement by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in
dispute in the action without his being given an opportunity of being heard.”
o Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd. v. Jamaluddin4 [1991] 2 MLJ 27, Pg. 28
 “One of the class of cases covered by the said rule, which allows intervention
by persons not parties, is where the proprietary or pecuniary rights of the
intervener are directly affected by the proceedings or where the intervener
may be rendered liable to satisfy any judgement either directly or indirectly.”

Interpleader
 Occurs when the Plaintiff holds the property on behalf of another, but does not
know to whom the property shall be transferred
o 1st stage: Determine if the stakeholder is entitled to be an interpleader and if he
shall be discharged from the liability
 o 2nd stage: Determine which of the claimants is entitled to the property
 O. 17 ROC
o Normally occurs in cases of JC and JD
o Sheriff enters into the JD’s premises to seize the goods
o Any party who has claims over the goods may apply to Ct for return of the
goods seized by Sheriff
 Poraviappan Arunasalam Pillay v. Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai & Anor.5
[2015] 6 CLJ 857, Pg. 888
 “The whole object the interpleader provision is to enable a person in the
position of a stakeholder to get relief form the Ct and get it decided as to
which of the two or more claimants he has to account for the money,
goods or chattels which he holds. So, the state of being sued or the
expectation to be sued in respect of those goods ‘by two or more persons
making adverse claims’, is the precondition which the Applicant must
fulfil to give the Ct the jurisdiction to exercise discretion to grant the relief.
There must be some real foundation for such expectation.”
 Tan Kim Khuan v. Tan Kee Kiat (M) Sdn. Bhd.6 [1998] 1 MLJ 697, Pg. 706
 “It is settled law that the BOP rests throughout the trial on the party on
whom the burden lies. Where a party on whom the burden of proof lies
has discharged it, then the evidential burden shifts to the other party.”