RESEARCH NOTE

Case 1: Harta Bitara Development Sdn Bhd v Khairuddin bin Hj Mustapa (sebagai President
Pertubuhan Seni Silat Lincah Malaysia) [2021] MLJU 2819
“The Kuala Lumpur High Court on 1 June 2018 gave judgment to the plaintiff and ordered
the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the Property to the plaintiff as the new
registered proprietor within seven days from the date of the judgment, and authorised the
plaintiff to enter the Property and even to use reasonable force to execute the said judgment
against the defendant. The orders stated as follows:
(i) Defendan menyerahkan milikan kosong kepada Plaintif hartanah yang dikenali sebagai
HS(D) 49812 No. PT1896 Bandar Selayang Daerah Gombak Negeri Selangor yang
dihuni/diduduki oleh Defendan dalam masa 7 hari dari tarikh penghakiman;
(ii) Berikutan perenggan (a) di atas, bahawa kebenaran diberi kepada Plaintif dan/atau Balif
Mahkamah untuk memasuki hartanah HS(D) 49812 No. PT1896 Bandar Selayang Daerah
Gombak Negeri Selangor dengan menggunakan kekerasan yang berpatutan sekiranya perlu
untuk tujuan melaksanakan penghakiman terhadap Defendan;”

Case 2: My Home Budget Hotel Sdn Bhd v Karpayah @ Karuppiah a/l Ramasamy & Anor
[2022] MLJU 2815
“…the plaintiff filed the instant originating summons (which originally started at the
Subordinate Court in 2018, but withdrawn, as stated above) against the defendants seeking
for delivery of vacant possession of the Units at 264A, 264B and 264C, with the bailiff be
authorised to use reasonable force to achieve the same, as well as for damages for the loss
of use of the vacant possession amounting to RM1,275,000.00 calculated from 1 April 2017
until 30 June 2021, and continuing until vacant possession of the premise was given to the
plaintiff.
…
In view of the foregoing, I found that the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendants
on a balance of probabilities and was accordingly deserving of the reliefs prayed for in the
OS. The same was therefore allowed, with costs to the plaintiff.”