Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

"They, too, must monitor their clients' cases and take action," he said, adding that lawyers could also write to the chief justice or the chief judge of Malaya to alert them of the status of cases if the judge concerned had retired or was indisposed.

He said the judiciary also had a role to track such files to do justice to litigants.

Ragunath said this in response to a land dispute that was filed at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur in 1980 but did not come to a finality.
The judge, who was later elevated to the Court of Appeal, had also retired.

The plaintiff, M. Subramaniam, paid a RM5,000 deposit to buy nine plots of land in Ipoh from brothers M. Aru-nasalam and Meyappan Chettiar.

The two, who inherited the property from their father, had given the power of attorney to Subbiah Chetiar to apply for grant of probate to allow for the land transfer and sale but he failed to do so.

Subramaniam filed for a summary judgment in 1987 and the judge reserved decision in 1989 but no decision was made because the court file could not be located.

In the meantime, Subramaniam had placed a caveat on the disputed land to prevent the brothers from dealing with the property.

Last week, however, High Court judge Datuk V.T. Singham of Ipoh removed the caveat lodged by Subramaniam on grounds that the sales and purchase agreement signed on Sept 12, 1974, was a conditional agreement and as such he had no caveatable interest.

Singham also held that Subramaniam had failed to take any step to proceed with the case or reconstruct the file for a succeeding judge to hear the summary judgment application and get the necessary direction.

The judge said the brothers could now deal with the land because they obtained the grant of probate on July 4, 2003.