PUTRAJAYA, Jan 3 — The hearing of a lawsuit by independent speaker Dr Zakir Naik against former Batu Uban Assemblyman S. Raveentharan will be heard in the Penang High Court.

This followed a decision by the Federal Court today in dismissing Dr Zakir’s application for leave to appeal after allowing a preliminary objection by Raveentharan’s lawyers, Datuk T. Tharumarajah, Kernail Singh, and Asmeeta Rajendran.

Federal Court judge Datuk Vernon Ong Lam Kiat said the Court of Appeal’s decision in August last year was premised on a preliminary objection raised at the hearing of the appeal and that the appellate court did not proceed to hear the merits of the appeal.

"As such the present motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the striking out of the appeal was on the basis of the preliminary objection that was raised by the respondent (Raveentharan) in the Court of Appeal,” he said.

He said leave cannot be granted under section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as the application for leave to appeal must relate to a matter in the High Court in its original jurisdiction.

Justice Ong allowed the preliminary objection and dismissed the leave to appeal application with RM30,000 costs.

On July 23 last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court allowed Raveentharan’s application to transfer the lawsuit to Penang High Court, prompting Dr Zakir to appeal against the decision to the Court of Appeal.

However, on August 13 last year, the Court of Appeal struck out Dr Zakir’s appeal after allowing a preliminary objection raised by Raveentharan’s counsels over non-compliance of a mandatory provision of Rule 18(6) of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 by the former’s (Dr Zakir’s) solicitors relating to the records of appeal.

He then filed an application to seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

In the court proceedings today, which was conducted virtually, Kernail Singh raised a preliminary objection saying that Dr Zakir’s application to seek leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was incompetent.

He submitted that the Federal Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant leave as the questions of law posed did not arise from the judgment or order of the Court of Appeal in respect of a cause of matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

He said the Court of Appeal had not heard Dr Zakir’s appeal on the merits against the decision of the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, instead the Court of Appeal heard a preliminary objection.

In other words, the Court of Appeal heard the preliminary objection in the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s original jurisdiction, he added.

Dr Zakir’s lawyer, Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah, who appeared with Dr Rafie Shafie and Datuk Akberdin Abdul Kader, argued that the Federal Court should hear the leave to appeal application.

He said the person raising the preliminary objections should set out in full what the various grounds were, but in this case, Raveentharan did not indicate any.

Dr Zakir filed the lawsuit on December 12, 2019 alleging that the former assemblyman had uploaded five defamatory statements on Facebook between October 13 and 17 the same year.

He is seeking an order to compel Raveentharan to remove the defamatory statements from the websites, social media and all related mediums, as well as general, aggravated, exemplary damages and compensation, as well as other relief deemed fit by the court. — Bernama