Lawyer Foo Ton Hin, who last week filed a civil case over the Bar Council election controversy , has sought an additional order from the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

His counsel Tommy Thomas ( photo ) filed a summons in chambers this morning, seeking that the ballot boxes remain in the Malaysian Bar's custody as the police have indicated that "they would like to take the ballot boxes away... for investigations".

Foo argued that the ballots and the marked ballot papers are the subject matter of legal proceedings that he originated last Thursday, and that the items should be kept by the council until the court makes a decision.

"If I succeed, the order this court would make, based on the relief sought in the originating summons, is for the scrutineers to continue the count which would necessarily and obviously require the ballot boxes and ballots to remain in the Bar Council," he said in his affidavit, copies of which were distributed to reporters.

In the alternative, he wants the court to instruct the defendants to complete the count and make a declaration on the results under Section 50(5) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) within two days of the order being issued.

The declaration should be kept in a sealed envelope to be filed with the High Court within three days of the order, with the information to remain confidential until the judge orders its disclosure.

Only then should the council be allowed to release the ballot boxes and their contents to the police, he said in the document.

The case will be mentioned on Friday before High Court judge Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim.

It will decide whether the ballot boxes should be kept by the Bar Council or be handed over to the police.

Foo, of TH Foo and Associates, was one of the 3,370 voters who voted last month to elect 12 council members for the 2007-08 term. However, the scrtuineers discovered forged ballot papers, leading to police reports being lodged.

He named the Bar Council and scrutineers Yaacob Hussain Merican, S Radhakrishnan and Inderjit Singh as defendants in his originating summons.

Foo is seeking a declaration that they had acted beyond the scope of the LPA when they declared the elections void on Dec 1.

According to a recent Star report, he wants the court to instruct them to verify the authenticity of the ballots cast by matching each against its counterfoil and excluding any that is not authentic.

Thereafter, the defendants will have to declare the names of the persons elected according to Section 50 (5) of the Act within seven days of the court order.

In the alternative, Foo wants the court to order three partners of an international accounting firm or other persons to be appointed as scrutineers at the expense of the Bar Council.

It should then take all necessary steps to complete the elections and announce the names of those elected.