For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

WRIT OF SUMMONS
Form 2:
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR

Heading of the Writ

consists of:

(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)
1.
WRIT SAMAN NO.:

TAHUN 2008
2.

Antara
Plaintif

PERTUBUHAN KEBAJIKAN
(No. Daftar Pertubuhan: 11X)

3.
Dan

Division of
court
Reference
number in the
cause book
Name of
plaintiff and
defendant

Defendan

SAIFUL BIN NASIR

WRIT SAMAN

YANG AMAT ARIF TAN SRI DATO SERI ALAUDDIN BIN DATO MOHD
SHERIFF, HAKIM BESAR MALAYA ATAS NAMA DAN BAGI PIHAK SERI
PADUKA BAGINDA YANG DIPERTUAN AGONG.

Kepada:

Legal Command of
Court on behalf of
Sovereign

SAIFUL BIN NASIR

Lot 123, Taman Suka-Suka
40000 Shah Alam
Selangor

Kami perintahkan kamu bahawa dalam tempoh lapan (8) hari selepas
penyampaian Writ ini ke atas kamu, termasuk hari penyampaian itu, kamu
hendaklah menyebabkan kehadiran dimasukkan untuk diri kamu dalam kausa
atas Guaman dan ambil perhatian bahawa, jika kamu ingkar
berbuat demikian, Plaintif boleh meneruskan untuk mendapatkan
penghakiman dan pelaksanaan.
Disaksikan oleh. Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada
.. haribulan.2008

.
PEGUAMCARA PLAINTIF

.
PENDAFTAR MAHKAMAH
MAHKAMAH TINGGI
KUALA LUMPUR

Page 1 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Issue of Writ:
-

Indorsement of Writ:

Writ is effective only when issued by

the Court.
Once the action/case
has been filed, the
limitation period ceases.
Writ deemed to be issued, when the
Registrar assigns
Serial number;
Signs;
Seals; and
Dates the writ O.6,r.
6(3)
Original writ filed in the Registry, and
Entry made in the cause book O.6, r.
6(4)

Case: Jumatsah bin Daud v Voon Kim Kuet

Principle:
An action is deemed to
commence when the plf
files the writ at the
relevant High Court
Registry and pay the
requisite fees.
Date of Issuance:
-

Effective date is a date where it is filed

in the Registry with the required
praecipe (i.e. writ + relevant
documents).
Not a date when writ is signed and
sealed by Registrar.

Case:
Fact:

Held:

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

Kok Song Kong v Brunei Shell

Writ filed 18th Apr 1984
Writ sealed 24th Apr 1984
Limitn period 20th Apr 1984
The action was correctly
instituted and should have been
sealed on the 18th Apr.

O.6, r.2 (1) provides that a writ must be

endorsed:
a. with statement of claim or concise
statement of the nature of the claim;

Writ
+
Pleading

Concise
statement

40 days

Statement of
claim

28 days

To
produce
statement
of
defence

b. If the plf sues in representative capacity,

the statement of his capacity;
c. If def sued in representative capacity,
the statement of his capacity;
d. If plf sues by soli, the plfs address and
solis name/firm and business address.
e. If plf sues in person :i.
With address of his place of
residence;
ii.
With his occupation; and
f. With no. of days for def to make
appearance.

Duration of Writ:
Life span of 6 months, beginning with the date
of issuance O.6, r.7 (1)
E.g.

1st February 2008

To be expired on

31st July 2008

Page 2 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

Case: Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands)

Principle:
When computing time, a writ shall be deemed to have expired a day earlier from the date
of issuance in the preceding year.
Fact: Writ Issued 10th Sept 1965
Writ Expired 10th Sept 1966 X
Writ Expired 9th Sept 1966

Renewal of Writ:
-

Renewal before the expiry of the writ, can be made by Order of the Court O.6, r.7 (2)
Renewal for another 6 months:
2 times for writ files in HC of Malaya
3 times for writ files in HC of Sabah & Sarawak
5 times for admiralty cases
Every renewal begins on day next after date of expiry of the writ.
there is an agreement
between parties to differ
the service of writ

Writ has been expired, does it entitle for renewal?

Case:
Held:

Heaven v Road & Rail Wagons

Renewal of writ upon the expiration of limitation period
would be permitted in exceptional circumstances

and these
circumstances
are:

def evaded service

of the writ

However, in
Case:
Held:

delay in service
of writ

Kleinworth Benson Ltd v Barbrak Ltd

Mere good reason was sufficient for these exceptional
circumstances.

Malaysian cases:
Case
Fact

Held

New Ching Kee v Lim Ser Hock

The soli applied for renewal on the
grounds of the file was mislaid and
the negotiations were continuing
These grounds were irrelevant

Case
Fact

Kun Kay Hong v Ta Heo Huat

Defs soli requested the plfs soli to
withhold service of writ

Held

Sufficient reason

Page 3 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

Service of Writ:
O. 10, r. 1 (1) A writ must be served:

Personally;
By prepaid AR registered post addressed to his last known address; or
If practicable, first attempt at service must be made not later than one month from date of issue of
the writ.

How to give effect Personal Service?

O. 62, r. 3

by leaving a copy of writ on person to be served; and

If requested by him at the time when it is left, showing him the sealed copy

Leaving the writ to be served with person being served would mean:

To hand it to him
To leave it as near as him physically possible so that he may assume possession of it

*if the document served was not made known as writ, then it was not good personal service.
*it is insufficient to effect personal by leaving it with the spouse or agent of the person intended to be
served.

Case: Thompson v Pheney

Held: Throwing the writ at the person to be served
after his refusal to accept it, is sufficient service

Case: Roase v Kempthone

Held: Pushed writ into inner folder of defs jacket,
which felt and picked up by def was a good service.

Case: Banque Russe v Clark

Fact: the writ in envelope and handed it to def but did
not inform him that it was a writ
Held: It was a bad personal service

Page 4 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

substituted service
order:
O. 62, r. 5

Recovery of land,
Court made order
affix copy of writ
on part of the land:
O. 10, r. 4
Action against
Govt: O.73, r. 3
&
S. 26 of GPA 1956

def makes
appearance before
being served:
O. 10, r. 1(3)

def's soli indorses

he accepts service
on behalf of def: O.
10, r. 1(2)

Exceptions to
personal
services

SOJ in a foreign
country:
O. 11, r. 5 (3)

Substituted Service:
O. 62, r. 5
SS can be made only by order of the Court, by way of:
- Advertising in newspapers;
- Posting it:
Courts notice board
Last known address of def
Any other manner as Court thinks fit.
No SS is allowed if whereabouts of def was unknown at time where the writ was issued as per Re
Nirmala a/p Muthiah Selvarajah

Practice Notice 1/68 (1957 White Book)

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

2 calls should be made;

Calls to defs residence or business at his business address (if the claim relates to defs business)
Calls made on weekdays at reasonable hours
Each call on a separate occasion (different days)
2nd call should be made by appointment by letter sent to defendant not less than 2 clear days
notice, enclosing:
i.
A copy of the document to be served
ii.
Offering an opportunity of making a different appointment

Page 5 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

f) On appointed date, the process server asks def whether he received letter of appointment with the
copy document
g) Affidavit deals
i.
with all the foregoing requirements;
ii.
state whether the letter of appointment has been returned or not;
iii.
any answer received should be exhibited;
iv.
a copy of document to be served should accompany the affidavit.
Practice Notice 1/68 is not applicable where the defs whereabouts is not known as per Re Nirmala case

Case: Re Aris bin Massod

Held: when only one call was made, it was held that the SS order was bad as
it failed to comply with PN 1/68

Case: Re Yeap Chee Fun

Held: PN 1/68 should not be followed religiously as long as it is substantially
followed.

Case: Leow Boke Chooi v Asia Motor Co Ltd

Held: the effect of noncompliance with the order was that there had been
no good and sufficient service on the def.

Case: Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v Astrid Jorum Saniman

Held: if a writ cannot be served personally, then there cannot be subsequent
SS of the same writ.

Page 6 of 7

For Revision Purposes Only

Azrin.Hafiz LL.B (Hons)/UiTM/June 2014

Service out of Jurisdiction:

#GR - no originating process can be served on
any person residing outside the jurisdiction of
the Court unless the Court grants leave - as per
case of Re Busfield
The application for leave is made by way of exparte application supported by an affidavit. The
plf must set out in the affidavit:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

the grounds on which application is

made;
the plfs belief that he has good
cause of action;
the plfs belief that he has good
arguable claim;
the country the def is or probably
may be found;
the Msian courts are the most
convenient forum on which action
can be proceed.

Case: Myerson v Martin

Principle:
Service of writ can be validly
affected on a foreign def if he is
within the local jurisdiction of
the court
Case:
Held:

Atmaram v Essa Industries Ltd

The service of a generally endorsed writ
which was served on a chairman of a
foreign company while he was on a visit
to Spore was valid although:
def had no office;
def had no agent;
Chairman of def had no control
of the management of the co
business; and
Chairman of def had no
authority to accept the service of
writ on behalf of def.

REFERENCE:
1. Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer (21st June 2012). Janabs key to civil procedure 5th ed. Janab (M)
Sdn Bhd: Kuala Lumpur.
2. Ravi Nekoo (2006). Civil Procedure 2nd ed. CLP Series. Lexis Nexis: Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

Page 7 of 7