JUDGMENT

Abdul Malek Ahmad JCA:

The doctrine of res judicata has been expounded in many an authority but, like other legal doctrines, continues to be argued before the Courts as each case must depend on its particular facts. In this appeal before us, despite a well reasoned judgment, we could not, having carefully considered the arguments canvassed before us, agree with the learned trial Judge who held that the doctrine was not applicable. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs here and below and order that the deposit be refunded to the appellant.

The sequence of events are not exactly in dispute. On 22 June 1982, the appellant as lender had executed a loan agreement with the respondent granting the latter a RM14.45 million loan which loan facility was secured by a charge over five pieces of land (hereinafter 'the charged properties') dated 31 May 1982. The respondent had defaulted on the loan whereupon the appellant had commenced an action in 1986 vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit C23- 948-86 (hereinafter 'the first action') against the respondent and the two guarantors.

A charge action was initiated on 25 April 1986 vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No