rayuan sivil no. w-02-562-2009 antara 1. s. ashok kandiah 2. tetuan ...

The learned trial judge was correct in holding that when
justification is pleaded, the burden is on the defendants to show
the Court that they are justified in making the allegation. He was
also correct when he stated:
In the context of the present case, this can only be done by showing to the
Court that the plaintiffs had in fact lied to the Sessions Judge. In order to
prove that both plaintiffs had lied to the Court as to the 2 nd plaintiffs
occupation, it is incumbent upon the defendants to prove on a balance of
probabilities that the 2 nd plaintiff was not a clerk at the 1 st plaintiffs office.
Nevertheless, the trial judge has failed to appreciate that in a civil
case, one partys evidence is the others as well. So, a defendant
may rely on the plaintiffs evidence to prove that he has misled or
lied to the Sessions Judge. The trial judge fell into serious error
when he held:
This , the defendants have failed to do. On the contrary, the evidence points
to the fact that the 2 nd plaintiff was indeed a temporary clerk at the 1 st
plaintiffs office, as he was employed as a temporary clerk at the Secretariat
of the Justice of the Peace Council, Seremban. That Secretariat was the
office of the 1 st plaintiff, located at the 1 st floor, 106 Jalan Yam Tuan,
Seremban. I find there is no basis for the 1 st defendant to find fault as to what
the plaintiffs had told the Sessions Court Judge as to the 2 nd plaintiffs
occupation.
The trial judge failed to appreciate that the sting in the Impugned
Letter is in the words:
14