Functus Officio?

I read the development in DSAI's case with interest - for the purpose of academic interest I wonder how did they reconcile today's decision (whereby the learned judge reversed his own earlier ruling) with the landmark case of HARTECON JV SDN BHD & ANOR v HARTELA CONTRACTORS LTD [1996] 2 MLJ 57 COURT OF APPEAL whereby it was held inter alia that"

"Once a judge makes a ruling, substantive or procedural, final or interlocutory, it must be adhered to and may not be reopened. Although the first decision was made on an interlocutory matter which was purely procedural in nature, it was nevertheless binding on the court and on all parties to the lis until its reversal on appeal."

I stand corrected but bukankah dalam kes ini kes ni dah jadi Res Judicata?

I quote, again from the same case, it was also held that:

" A failure to adhere to the principle of res judicata may lead to chaos in the conduct of civil proceedings. In this case, on the assumption of the law made by counsel before the court, there would have been no bar to the judge to re-review his second decision reversing himself. The process could then be repeated ad infinitum with no conclusion".

So apa kesudahan kes ini? Bukankah sepatutnya pendakwaan perlu merayu ke mahkamah rayuan baru betul?