Rahul, a businessman living in Jaipur, supplied electronic goods worth ₹ 5 lakh to M/s Bright Electronics, owned by Ramesh, located in Jodhpur. The goods were supplied on credit and Ramesh issued a promissory note promis

Rahul, a businessman living in Jaipur, supplied electronic goods worth ₹ 5 lakh to M/s Bright Electronics, owned by Ramesh, located in Jodhpur. The goods were supplied on credit and Ramesh issued a promissory note promising to pay the amount within three months. After the expiry of the stipulated period, Ramesh failed to make the payment. Rahul therefore filed a summary suit in the District Court at Jaipur for recovery of the amount. Meanwhile, Ramesh filed another civil suit in the Civil Court at Jodhpur alleging that the goods supplied were defective and claimed damages of ₹ 3 lakh from Rahul. During the proceedings, Ramesh argued that the Jaipur court did not have territorial jurisdiction, since his business and residence were in Jodhpur. He also requested the court to stay the proceedings in Jaipur because the Jodhpur case concerning the same dispute was already pending. Rahul, on the other hand, argued that the cause of action partly arose in Jaipur, since the contract was executed and goods were dispatched from Jaipur. Later, the Jodhpur court decided the suit filed by Ramesh and held that the goods supplied were not defective. The court dismissed Ramesh's claim. After the decision, Ramesh attempted to raise the same issues again in the Jaipur court. Rahul objected, arguing that the matter had already been decided and therefore the principle of res judicata applied. Finally, the Jaipur court decided the recovery suit in favour of Rahul and ordered Ramesh to pay ₹ 5 lakh along with interest. Based on the above situation answer the following questions: Explain the principle of res judicata. Can Ramesh raise the same issue again after the Jodhpur Court has decided it?