The court found that the issues raised in the present suit, including limitation, validity of the charge, and the respondent's statutory power of sale, had already been determined in previous suits between the same parties, specifically HCCC No. 693 of 1996 and HCCC No. 225 of 1998. The applicant had the opportunity to redeem the property but failed to comply with the consent order, and subsequent applications on similar grounds were dismissed. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the applicant from re-litigating these issues. Furthermore, the court agreed with prior rulings that limitation does not apply to the respondent's exercise of statutory power of sale, as no action for recovery of the debt was brought. The present suit was therefore an abuse of process and was struck out with costs to the respondent.