SAHIL GILL Vs. DEVASTHAN MAHARISHI BALMIKI VIRMARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dtd. 31/7/2025, passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in Civil Suit No. 10085CNRJKJ MO 20000011997, whereby the learned Trial Court declined to frame an additional issue relating to the alleged bar of the suit under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner, who is the President of the Christian Beradri and a defendant in the said civil suit, submits that the claim for recovery of possession now sought by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) ought to have been claimed in their earlier suit, and having failed to do so, the present suit is barred by the principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC.

(2.) The present dispute pertains to an immovable property claimed by two religious sects the Balmiki Hindus (represented by Respondents 1 to 3) and the Christian community (represented by the petitioner). The respondents 1 to 3 had previously instituted Suit No. 25/1973, titled Mohan Lal Motyal & Others v. Faquira & Others, seeking a declaration regarding their entitlement to compensation for a portion of the said property acquired by the State, which was decided on 31/12/1973 by the Court of learned Sub-Judge in favour of the respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) It is further relevant to observe that the legality of the decree and judgment passed in File No. 25 of 1973 titled Mohan Lal Motiya & Ors. v. Fakira & Ors, came to be assailed through a civil suit instituted in a representative capacity, titled John Peter & Ors. v. Mohan Lal Motiya & Ors., under the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Court of the learned City Judge, Jammu, registered as File No. 06/suit 1989. The said suit continues to remain pending adjudication before the aforesaid Court. It is in the course of those proceedings that petitioner No. 1 came to be transposed as one of the plaintiffs and is arrayed therein as plaintiff No. 3. Arguments on behalf of Petitioner: