A group of 20 Bukit Tinggi Estate residents today handed a memorandum to Chief Justice Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah alleging irregularities in their case when their former employers served them a three-day eviction notice despite that the matter was still pending in court.

The group carried a banner and held a peaceful protest in the presence of six uniformed plainclothed policemen in front of the Federal Court in Kuala Lumpur this afternoon.

A representative from Dzaiddin's office received the petition on behalf of the chief justice.

The residents are among 26 defendants who alleged being 'misled' by a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Jelata Bumi Sdn Bhd and Guthrie Berhad.

Social activist S Arutchelvan, who is helping the Bukit Tinggi Estate residents, alleged that the plaintiffs' lawyer who had earlier met the judge in chamber on March 19 had told the defendants that their case was postponed to a later date.

The plaintiffs received a default judgment on March 26 to demolish the defendants' houses in Bukit Tinggi on the ground that they were not present for the March 19 court hearing.

The demolition will begin tomorrow.

The residents were mostly former workers at the rubber estate whose land has been sold and earmarked for development. They are among the last of the lot to vacate the houses and are fighting for better compensation for their loss.

Grace period

In a related development, justice Abd Hamid Said today gave the 26 defendants an ex-parte injunction against the demolition of their houses until the case is heard again on April 15.

The injunction will also prevent the disconnection of electricity and water supply to the defendants' houses and from any encroachment to their property.

Defendants' lawyer, Charles Hector said even when the plaintiffs get a judgment to proceed with the demolition, the residents should be given reasonable time to comply with the order.

He said 'reasonable time' must not be less than 30 days from the day the judgment is served.

"If the person does not move out, the plaintiffs must come back to get a court order. They cannot take matters into their own hands," the lawyer said, arguing that the demolition tomorrow is not in pursuant to any court order.

When contacted, the legal firm representing the plaintiffs refused to comment on the matter.