The decision reaffirmed that once a matter is adjudicated, parties are barred from relitigating the same issues under the doctrine of res judicata.

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before us. The appellant is the same in both appeals. The respondent in the first appeal (W-02-(IM)(NCvC-1195-06-2019) is CIMB Bank Bhd whereas the respondent in the second appeal (W-02-(IM)(NCvC-32-01-2020) is Ong Kay Ho. The subject matter of the dispute is a detached house which was sold in a public auction. Both appeals arise from the decision of the High Court to strike out the suit of the appellant to set aside the order for sale and nullify the auction sale.

[2] The appellant is Ravindra a/p Karuppiah. She is the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Muthiyah Seethambaram, who was the previous registered owner of the property. The respondents' separate applications to strike out the suit were successful, and hence the two instant appeals before us. Both appeals were heard together pursuant to an order of this Court. To avoid confusion, we shall refer to the respondents by their names.

Background Facts

[3] The property which is the subject of dispute between the parties is a detached house bearing postal address 809, Kampung Tasek Permai, Ampang, Selangor. It was purchased by Mr Muthiyah who used it as his family home. CIMB Bank Bhd granted Mr Muthiyah a loan in the sum of RM62,249.00 on 5 May 2006. The loan was taken to improve the property in question. The loan facility was known as Homextra Facility and it included Group Mortgage (GMTA) Term Assurance for the sum of RM2,249.00. On 9 October 2008, Mr Muthiyah signed the loan agreement and at the same time executed a charge in favour of CIMB Bank as security for the loan. The loan was to be repaid within 15 years. However, on 16 February 2014, Mr Muthiyah died of a heart attack. Following his death, CIMB Bank as the policy owner of the GMTA recovered the insured sum of RM19,765.00. Nevertheless, there was a balance of RM37,772.15 still outstanding on the loan account.

[4] CIMB Bank's case is that Mr Muthiyah's family was informed of the outstanding amount vide several notices of demand and instruction was sought on the redemption of the outstanding sum. As the family of the deceased failed to settle the redemption sum, CIMB Bank instituted foreclosure proceedings (Case No 24FC-550-06/2016) on 10 June 2016. However, Mr Muthiyah, the deceased borrower, was named as respondent in the originating summons that was filed to realize the statutory charge. CIMB Bank obtained the order for sale on 15 July 2016 and a public auction was held at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 17 October 2016. Ong Kay Ho successfully purchased the property in question at the reserve price of RM350,000.00 and subsequently became the registered owner.

[5] The appellant did not intervene to challenge the order for sale in the foreclosure proceedings. Instead, she filed a writ action, namely Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-723-12/2017 (Suit 723) on 15 December 2017 to set aside the order for sale that was obtained by CIMB Bank to auction the property in question. CIMB Bank filed a striking out application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012. The action against CIMB Bank was struck out on 21 May 2018 by the High Court. The appellant did not appeal against this decision. Thereafter, the appellant withdrew the action against the second defendant, ie, Ong Kay Ho.

[6] Following the striking out of Suit 723, the appellant commenced another suit which is the subject matter of the instant appeals against CIMB Bank and Ong Kay Ho on 30 August 2018. Once again, the appellant applied to set aside the order for sale that was granted on 15 J