JUDGE ZAINON DEBELIBERATELY CAUSED PETITIONER TO LOOSE RM60,000 INTENDING TO STRIKE OUT & CAUSE LOSS OF RM60,000

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
( BAHAGIAN DAGANG )
PETISYEN PEMULA NO: D2-26-41 TAHUN 2001

Dalam perkara McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (nama lamanya) dikenali sebagai Relionus Adjusters Sdn Bhd)
Dan
Dalam Perkara Seksyen 181 Akta Syarikat, 1965
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 88 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi , 1980


Antara

Lim Choi Yin ...Pempetisyen

Dan

1. Mc Laren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
2. Wong Kem Chen (No. K/P: 500807-06-5077)
3. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (No. K/P: 3912914)
4. Leong Yee Fook (No. K/P: 560727-10-5651)
5. Lum Siew Wai (No. K/P: 4734145) ... Responden-
6. Haris Onn bin Hussein Onn (No. K/P: 661124-10-5727) Responden


I wish to pose a question to the Chief Judge Tun Fairoz, the legal fraternity (Bar Council), Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; GIVEN THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD IT IN HER MIND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE’S PETITION, then why did she (judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali) EXTRACT RM.60,000 FROM MY WIFE AS SECURITY FOR COSTS, AND UPON PAYMENT OF THE SUM BY MY WIFE AS SECURITY FOR COSTS, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, AS PROMPTLY FOLLOWED BY MY WIFE’S PAYMENT BY STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION ?

Security for costs is imposed by the Court on a litigant ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING the costs of his opponent FOR COSTS ARISING FROM THE PROCESSES OF THE TRIAL; but in my wife/s case Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had all along decided to strike out said petition, THEN MY QUESTION IS”where is the costs?” because THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A TRIAL since Judeg Zainon had already decided to strike out even before the money for security for costs was ever paid. There was (according to the thinking of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali) never ever going to be any trial, THEREFORE WHERE IS THE COSTS ? And why impose security for costs when in the opinion said Petition was a "NULLITY" and therefore by the reckening of Judge Zainon there was no legal basis for the claim, therefore no legal processes WOULD ARISE FROM THE PETITION WHATSOEVER; hence my question to all the above, Chief Judge Tun Faroz, Zainon, Bar Council, and the public, "WHERE IS THE COSTS ARISING FROM "no trial"? WHERE IS THE COSTS ?

I have earlier argued a case (in my earlier posts) that the 3 criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen together with HARRIS ONN BIN HUSSEIN ONN, LEONG YEE FOOK & LUM SIEW WAI, ALL JOINTLY CONTRIVED A CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES, AND TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD; because their supporting affidavits forms the basis for their application for securing the rm.60,000 AND THEIR SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS CONTAINED STATEMENTS THAT WERE PERJURED.

Judge Zainon binti ohd. Ali conduct in refusing my wife leave to cross examine the criminals is evidence that she knew that the supporting affidavits were perjured and that the case for the RESPONDENTS will be struck out, since they defence was, that PETITIONER HAS DISPOSED OFF HER PROMOTER’S SHARE.