MALAYSIA

surT No.22-2s-2008
BETWEEN
TING SIE CHUNG (A)
TING SIEH CHUNG
(wN.KP.441211
-13-5217)
TINGKOKNAM (F)
(wN.KP.520r
01 -13_5430)
BOTH No. 7D, Drive 4,
Brooke Drive,
96000 Sibu Sarawak.
HUNGADA
SENDIRIAN
BERHAD (CO.NO.rst079_H)
No. 2 & 4,Lorongl7,
Rejang
Park,
96000 Sibu, Sarawak.
AND
YEAPJING
FONG
(wN.KP.6s06
1s_08_647s)
No.2l,
Jalan Utarid
U5/17(pS),
Seksyen
U5
@anasuria),
40150
Shah Alam,
Selangor
Darul Ehsan,
... lST PLAINTIFF
... 2ND PLAINTIFF
...3RDPLIINTIFF
... DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
IN REPLY
(ln
reply
of the Supplementary
Affldavit
of
yEAp
JING FONG
affirmed on the
28.10.2008
and the Affidavit
In Reply
of
yEAp
JING FONG affrrmed
on the
13.1 1.2008 respectively.)
I, TING
SIE CHUNG (WN,Kp.NO.44l2tl-13_5217),
a Advocate
of fuil age
residing
at 7D, Drive 4, Brooke
Drive,96000
sibu, sarawak
do hereby solemoiy
and sincerely
aflirm and say as follows:_
4.
1.
J.
6.
7.
I am the abovenamed l'! plaintiff
and I am duly authorised by the 2nd and 3d
plaintiffs
to depose hereto.
I have read the Supplementary Affidavit of
yeap
Jing Fong, the defendant
affirmed herein on 28.10.2008 (hereinafter
referred to as
,,the
defendant's
Supplementary Affidavit") and the Affrdavit In Reply of
yeap
Jing Fong, the
defendant affirmed on 13.11.2008 (hereinafter
refened to as
..the
defendant,s
Affdavit In Reply") and I crave leave to refer to the same in my reply.
I am advised by my solicitor and verily believe that the said defendant's
Memorandum
of Conditional Appearance stated in
paragaph
4(d) of the
defendant's Supplementary
Affrdavit is not valid or proper and is a nullity and
must be set aside.
I am advised by my counsel and verily believe that the said Deputy Registrar's ex
parte order to enter conditional appearance stated in
paragraph
4(c) of the
defendant's Supplementary
Affidavit is ultra vires the Rules of the High court
1980 and/or the said conditional
appearance is void ab initio, null and void and/or
being made without Jurisdiction
and/or in excess ofthe
power
and Jurisdiction of
the Deputy Registrar.
In respect of Paragraph 4 of the defendant,s Aflidavit In Reply, the defendant
stated that he does not own Tanahmas Hotel or operates the said Hotel in Sibu,
Sarawak, but the defendant admitted that he did lodge at Tanahmas Hotel Sibu on
30.11.2007
at the Material times negotiated and executed the sale and
purchase
Agreemenl
with the plaintiffs.
In respect
of Paragraphs
6 to
g
of the defendant,s Affidavit In Reply, I did not
cover up ar)'thing
regarding our background, I frankty speak to the defendant that
I am a lawyer practising
in Sibu under the law firm of Ting & Ting Advocates. I
did suggest to the defendant
to instruct another lawyer to prepare
the Sale and
Purchase
Agreement
but the defendant
decided to prepare
the sale and
purchase
Agreement
by all parties
concem in order to save legal fees. It is not true that the
defendant
was not given
the time to retain a lawyer at the material times. The
clause 6(a), (b)
and (c)
ofthe sale and
purchase
Agreement
were understood
by
all parties
that it should operate to the effect as I deposed to in
paragraph
10 to 1l
of my Affidavit
In Reply affirmed
on the 3.l 1.200g.
I firther depose that the 2nd plaintiffis
my wife and Ting Kee Ching is my son but
in business
we are separate
entities and having individual
interest. Ting Kee
Ching
does not own any share in the 3.d ptaintiff,s
company,
so the defendant
consented
that Ting Kee ching to be the witness
of the Sale and
purchase
Agreement
because
he was present
at the scene of negotiation
and execution
of
the Sale and Purchase
Agreement.
5.
8. In respect to paragraph
9 of the defendant's Affidavit In Reply. I am the l,t
plaintiff
and denied all the allegations made by the defendant in this paragraph
and/or any other similar affidavit affirmed by the defendant. If it is such a case
(which
is denied) the defendant should not issue the cheque for the payment
of
the deposit under the Sale and Purchase Agreement before the Documents were
delivered to him and,/or the conditions including the date of delivery should be
put in writing and./or incorporated
in the Sale and
purchase
Agreement which is
shown to me marked as "YJF"in the Mr
yeap,s
Affidavit In Support. The
defendant never made a request that the documents shourd be delivered to him
before this summon was issued. The defendant stopped the payment
even before
the date of cheque due. If the defendant
made the request (which
is denied) I am
the 1" plaintiffstill
can deliver to him all the docrrments required by him.
I strongly
denied all the comments,
denials and./or allegations
made by the
defendant
in Paragraphs
14 to 1g of the defendant's
Affidavit In Reply affirmed
on the 13.11.2008.
Our applications
were made according to the facts and related
law' It should
be decided
by the Judge of the High court rather than defendant's
comments.
In the.premises,
I humbly pray
the plaintiffs
applications
in encrosures 1g and 20
be allowed
with costs and the defendant,s
application
in enclosure
22 be
dismissed
with costs.
o
10.
Affrrmed
by the said
TINGSIE
CHUNG
at Sibu in the State of Sarawak
ll".*
.,h{Ar
**
l
l
l
l
l
l
IiuX1g.3',
t"
"rx?:i;
r;;
x ;j!
;*r,,,
This Affidavit
In Reply
of Ting Sie Chung is affirmed
on the
and is filed
by Messrs.
Tai choi
yu
& co. Advocates
for the
plaintiffwhose
address
for service
is at No. 12, 1.rfloor,
Kiat Siong Building,
Jalan Bendahara,
9g000
Miri,
Sarawak.
1^v;ffil