Whether the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the order on 25.6.2021. The Analysis and Decision of this Court [12] From the outset, this Court finds that this application (Enclosure 5) to move the court for an equitable order of injunction is an abuse of the court process. In essence, the Plaintiff is seeking to injunct and prohibit the Defendant from executing the High Court order of 25.6.2021. There was no application to stay the High Court order of 25.6.2021 nor was there an appeal against the OS1705 decision, which to this Court’s mind is the correct avenue to temporarily freeze/stay, so to speak, the execution of the same. Thus, the High Court order dated 25.6.2023 and OS1705 have been rendered final, there being no extant appeal. Once the order has been perfected and regularly obtained, the Court is functus officio to hear the same matter. As such, the matter is now res judicata and cannot be relitigated. The Court of Appeal in Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd v Raja Qahaarruddin Raja Abdul Aziz [2020] 2 CLJ 519 held that; “There must be an end to all litigation involving the same issue either because the affected party had not exercised its right of appeal or that it has exhausted all avenues of setting aside the impugned judgment or subsequent consent order.” [13] There were earlier attempts to attain the objective of continued tenancy and evade eviction of the premises – the High Court order of 25.6.2021 was the result, as with the dismissal of OS 1705. This application for the interim injunction was clearly an abuse of the court process (in fact from this viewpoint, this suit lodged as well). The issues put forth and argued as serious bona fide triable issues had been dealt with on numerous occasions by our courts at three different levels. [14] The Plaintiff action amounted to the same action on a third attempt. The principle of res judicata wholly applied in this instant. The Supreme Court in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189 premised its decision on the principle: “What is res judicata? It simply means a matter adjudged, and its significance lies in its effect of creating an estoppel per rem judicatum. When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur. The public policy of the law is that, it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation – interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. It is only just that no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause of action – nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa. Both maxims are rationales for the doctrine of res judicata, but the earlier maxim has the further elevated status of a question of public policy.” [15] Authorities that bound this Court affirmed that the Plaintiff’s action was equivalent to an attempt to re-litigate the same issues raised several times earlier – the Court of Appeal held in David Cheah Seng Chye v So Miau Song & Ors & Other Appeals [2023] 5 CLJ 20 that the High Court Judge Justice Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh was correct in applying the principle of res judicata on a matter before him which was litigated and adjudicated earlier to which there was no appeal. [16] The Plaintiff in seeking the equitable relief for an order to injunct another must come with clean hands. This action was obviously tarnished by its numerous attempts to open litigation before the courts. Moreover, this Court noted that there was considerable delay to seek for this order which the Plaintiff claimed was pertinent to preserve the status quo. The High Court order of 25.6.2021 had been effective since it was meted out. The Defendant had made numerous requests for the delivery of vacant possession of the premises to no avail. The Plaintiff were highly aware and had full knowledge of their legal obligations mandated by the High Court order. So, even on the principle of inordinate delay, this application cannot succeed – see Kasim Musa & 3 Ors v Maniam Raman [2000] 1 LNS 387. [17] On the other hand, there were glimpses of bad faith on the part of the Plaintiff as Enclosure 5 to apply for an interim injunction was filed on 20.4.2023, after the Defendant had obtained leave for writ of possession two weeks prior. [18] Nevertheless, for such an application, consideration must be made as to whether there were serious questions to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether the balance of convenience or justice of the case; as per American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] q All ER 504 and Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun bin Abdullah & 2 Ors [1995] 3 BLJ 254. [19] This Court doubted the issues that the Appellant argued as serious bona fide issues to be tried warranted the grant of the injunction prayed for. They had been adjudicated in the previous suits. A re-litigation of the issues must not be allowed as it was estopped by the principle of res judicata. [20] This Court further was not satisfied that damages were not an adequate remedy. The expenses spent were quantifiable. The Plaintiff’s action was premised on tenancy, not ownership of the premises. Interlocutory order for an interim injunction would not be suitable – Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Chan Boon Heng & Anor [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 30. [21] This Court considered the truth borne out of the High Court order of 25.6.2021 which was the fact that the Defendant, the legal and rightful owner of the premises, had an immediate right by 30.9.2021 to the vacant possession of the same. The Defendant was also entitled to all the rentals due from the Plaintiff – double rental from 30.9.2021 onwards. [22] The balance of convenience and justice in the case was with the Defendant. Almost two years later, the Defendant had yet to enjoy the fruits of litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision in Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 461 had reference, the test iterated as follows: “On the one hand, there is a risk that if the interlocutory injunction is refused but the plaintiffs succeed in establishing at the trial their legal rights to the protection for which the injunction has been sought they may in the meantime have suffered harm and inconvenience or monetary loss for which an award of money can provide no adequate recompense. On the other hand, there is the risk that if the interlocutory injunction is granted but the plaintiffs fail at the trial, the defendants may in the meantime have suffered harm and inconvenience which is similarly irrecompensable.” [23] The Federal Court ruled in S&M Jewellery Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Fui Lian-Kwong Hing Sdn Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 16 that equity would not allow any party to allege a tenancy existed when it was terminated. In this instant before this Court, there was confirmation in the most certain clarity that the Plaintiff was to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the Defendant. [24] This Court had also noted that the Plaintiff had omitted to provide full and frank disclosure on the fact that they had attempted to set aside the High Court order of 25.6.2021 before but had failed. OS 1705 was not disclosed and this Court found that to be a material fact. The Plaintiff thus had not complied with Order 29 Rule 2A (e) and (f) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). Order 29 Rule 2A provided that the affidavit in support of an ex-parte application must contain a clear and concise statement of: “(e) any facts which may lead the Court not to grant the application ex parte or at all;