Puganesvaran a/l Lachemanan & Anor v Lachemanan a/l Sinnasamy

Appellant(s):

• Puganesvaran A/L Lachemanan
• Nagarajan A/L S. Lachemanan

Respondent(s): Lachemanan A/L Sinnasamy

• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The plaintiff and the first and second defendants, who are family members, entered into a settlement agreement for the payment of RM5.5 million to the plaintiff from the proceeds of a property sale.
• Following the defendants' failure to pay, the High Court granted a mandatory injunction ordering the first and second defendants to deposit the sum into their solicitor's client account by a specified date (Initial Date).
• The defendants failed to comply with the injunction, leading to committal proceedings where they were found guilty and fined RM200,000.00; subsequently, the plaintiff applied for and obtained a Consequential Order from the High Court fixing a new date for compliance, which the defendants appealed.

• Whether the Court has the power under Order 45 Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) to fix a new and additional time for an act to be done after the original time has lapsed due to non-performance and a committal fine has been imposed.
• If not under Order 45 Rule 6(1) ROC, whether the Court can make such an order under its inherent powers pursuant to Order 92 Rule 4 ROC.
• Whether the High Court was functus officio after the initial committal proceedings, and if the Consequential Order infringed the rule against double jeopardy or failed to adequately consider the defendants' impecuniosity.

• The Court of Appeal held that Order 45 Rule 6(1) ROC does not empower the Court to fix a further and additional date for performance after the original date has passed due to non-compliance, as the provision relates to the extension or abridgement of the original executory time.
• However, the Court affirmed that the High Court correctly invoked its inherent powers under Order 92 Rule 4 ROC to grant the Consequential Order, as a valid and unperformed Court order must be obeyed, and the inherent liberty to apply for consequential orders exists to give effect to the original judgment.
• The Court further decided that the High Court was not functus officio because the Consequential Order merely ensured compliance with an existing order without altering its merits, and a new date for performance does not constitute double jeopardy as any subsequent non-compliance would be a distinct and fresh breach.