Res Judicata| Contempt Court Sole Authority To Rule On Judgment Adherence, Subsequent Litigation On Same Issue Impermissible: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has determined that the Contempt Court possesses the authority to adjudicate on whether a judgment of the Court has been adhered to. Once the Contempt Court has rendered a decision on the merits of such a question, it is not permissible for a party to reintroduce the same issue in a subsequent lawsuit or any other proceeding.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has observed,“The Contempt Court is competent to decide an issue as to whether or not judgment of the Court has been complied with and once such a question has been decided on merits by the Contempt Court, it would not be open to a party to raise the same issue in a subsequent suit or any other proceeding as the same would be barred under Section 11 read with Explanation (VIII) of the Civil Procedure Code”.The court made these observations while hearing a Civil First Appeal against a judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby the suit for recovery filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.25 Lakh had been dismissed.Background of The Case:The case involved a lecturer, Ms. Ranjeet Kour, who was appointed at Government College for Women in Srinagar in 1980. She went on leave in 1980 due to her husband and son's illness. Upon returning in 1985, she was denied joining and transferred to a distant college. This sparked a long legal fight.Ms. Kour filed a writ petition challenging her termination, which was quashed by the High Court in 1999. She was reinstated and awarded back wages from the date of the writ order. However, the State challenged this decision, and the Supreme Court modified it in 2004, granting back wages only from 1999.Contempt of Court and the Subsequent Suit:Despite the Supreme Court's order, Ms. Kour claimed she hadn't received all her dues. She filed two contempt petitions against the state, alleging non-compliance with the court orders. Both petitions were disposed of, with the court observing that the state had complied with the judgment and paid the outstanding dues.Unsatisfied, Ms. Kour filed a civil suit in 2019, seeking the remaining back wages with interest. The state, citing the previous contempt proceedings and the principle of res judicata, opposed the suit and accordingly came to be dismissed. It was this dismissal which was being assailed in the appeal contending that the civil suit was valid since the Contempt Court's order did not address the issue of interest.Court Observations:Upon reviewing the directions of the Contempt Court, Justice Dhar observed that there is complete compliance of the judgment as the appellant has failed to point out from the record as to how the judgment has not been complied with. “It seems that the only contention that was urged by the appellant before the Contempt Court was that interest on delayed payments was not paid. Since there was no direction by the Supreme Court with regard to payment of interest, therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to direct payment of interest on delayed payments”, the court recorded.Answering the question as to whether the civil suit filed by the appellant for recovery of alleged outstanding dues is maintainable in the face of the observations of the Contempt Court Justice Dhar emphasised that the Contempt Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction had competently decided the issue of compliance with the Writ Court's judgment.Given the same, the appellant's attempt to reopen the matter in a subsequent suit was deemed impermissible under Section 11 read with Explanation (VIII) of the Civil Procedure Code, the bench underscored while reasoning that the object of the principle of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of the CPC is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment as to the points decided either of fact or of law or of fact and law.Applying the aforementioned legal principle to the present case, Justice Dhar noted that, while exercising its contempt jurisdiction, the Court meticulously examined the issue and carefully reviewed the presented evidence. Since the Court unequivocally determined that the judgment had been fully adhered to, any attempt by the appellant to initiate a recovery suit was untenable in light of the doctrine of res judicata, the bench explained.Based on these considerations the court found the appeal devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.Case Title: SMT. RANJEET KOUR Vs. STATE OF J&K & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 317Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Res Judicata| Contempt Court Sole Authority To Rule On Judgment Adherence, Subsequent Litigation On Same Issue Impermissible: J&K High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags