( 1 ) THE only question in this case is whether the suit instituted by the opposite party Jatindra Nath Kar in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, on 6-1-1954, in which he had asked for re-opening of a preliminary and final decree passed in Title Suit No. 22 of 1941 of the same court and lor the passing of a new decree and consequential reliefs, is barred by the principle of res judicata. The previous title suit was instituted by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 against the present plaintiff Jatindra Nath Kar, his wife Prativamoyee Kar and certain other persons. Prativamoyee appeared in that suit and filed a written statement. In the plaint in that suit a definite averment was made that the loan in respect of which the mortgage was taken was a commercial loan. In her written statement, Prativamoyee pleaded that the loan was not a commercial loan, that she was entitled to the benefits of the Bengal Money Lenders Act and that instalments should be granted. Jatindra Nath Kar, though served with notice of the suit, did not appear and did not file any written statement. At the final hearing of the suit, Prativamoyee also did not appear and an ex parte order