JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

(Striking Out Applications)

Preliminary

[1] In the case at hand, three enclosures have been filed by the defendants: Enclosure 15 by the 1st Defendant, encl 17 by the 2nd Defendant, and encl 28 by the 3rd Defendant.

[2] The three enclosures demonstrate the defendants' concerted efforts to attack the plaintiff's action in order to have it struck out under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012").

[3] The defendants' applications share a similar basis. The main contention is that res judicata applies to this case. The defendants claim in this regard that since the plaintiff attempted to commence actions on similar subject matter and based on similar facts several times before, this new complaint is now caught by res judicata.

Facts Of The Case: An Overview

[4] On 11 July 1992, the plaintiff acquired the property in dispute from a developer and financed it through a local financial institution ("bank").

[5] During the period 1994 - 2009, the plaintiff claimed he was responsible for repaying the loan.

[6] On 12 October 2009, however, the plaintiff allegedly discovered that a third party had fully paid his loan without his knowing who it was.

[7] Upon lodging complaints, the bank cancelled the redemption and refunded the money back to the third party.

[8] However, in 2011, the bank informed the plaintiff that a Court 's order dated 24 January 2011 had been produced by the said third party to try to redeem the property once more. The third party obtained this order allegedly based on a Power of Attorney Cum Assignment dated 30 November 2005 and a Power of Attorney dated that same day.

[9] Following a file search, the plaintiff discovered that the 1st Defendant had obtained a Judgment in Default ("JID") for specific performance of the property.

[10] Upon further investigation, the plaintiff realised that the action was instituted on the basis that he had allegedly sold the property to the 1st Defendant for RM100,000.00.

[11] According to the plaintiff, he never received the RM100,000.00 nor signed the Power of Attorney Cum Assignment and Power of Attorney as mentioned above. This led to the plaintiff alleging fraud.

[12] As of 17 June 2010, the 1st Defendant had filed a civil action registered as S-22-569-2010 ("Suit 569") against the plaintiff seeking, amongst others, specific performance for the transfer of the plaintiffs property to him.

[13] Initially, the 1st Defendant obtained the said JID against the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the plaintiff was able to set aside the JID.

[14] Following that, the 1st Defendant and the plaintiff negotiated regarding the filing of a Notice of Discontinuance ("NOD"). There has been an agreement between both parties not to pursue further action against one another. The NOD was then filed with the additional condition 'without liberty to file afresh'.

[15] The parties agreed on the following NOD and filed it in Suit 569:

NOTIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANTARA PLAINTIF DAN DEFENDAN

AMBIL PERHATIAN bahawa secara persetujuan Plaintif menarik balik tuntutannya dan memberhentikan keseluruhan tindakan ini terhadap Defendan dan juga tindakan Defendan terhadap Plaintif secara tuntutan balas dimana:

1. Plaintif menarik balik tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan tanpa perintah bagi kos;

2. Defendan menarik balik tuntutan balas Defendan terhadap Plaintif tanpa perintah bagi kos;

3. Plaintif tidak berminat untuk meneruskan tuntutan terhadap Hartanah tersebut yang dipegang dibawah Hakmilik Strata PN 9005/M1 1/1 Aksesori A1 dan A3 Daerah Ulu Langat Bandar Ampang, Lot 35588 PM 9005, Negeri Selangor yang beralamat Lot No 3150, Ground Floor, Block 128, No 16, Jalan Teratai 2/7M, Taman Bukit Teratai 56100 Kuala Lumpur melalui tindakan Mahkamah ini lagi

4. Pemberhentian ini adalah tanpa kebebasan untuk Plaintif dan Defendan memfailkan semula tuntutan atau tuntutan balas mereka.

[16] The plaintiff then claimed that the 1st Defendant fraudulently deceived him into agreeing to the NOD and its terms. It appears to