1. Brief Facts:
The instant petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 31.07.2025, 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 R.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 R.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 and Others v. Faquira and 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 and Others v. Fakira and Others, came to be assailed through a civil suit instituted in a representative capacity, titled John Peter and Others v. Mohan Lal Motiya and Others, under the provisions of Order I R.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.

4. Arguments on behalf of Petitioner:
The petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the written statement filed by respondents 1 to 3, wherein, by way of preliminary objection, the maintainability of the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was questioned. It was specifically contended therein that the suit is not maintainable, being barred by the provisions of Order II R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Subsequently on the basis of the reply, the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2000 initially framed as many as six issues which are reproduced as under:
i) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be wet in terms of S.10 of the CPC for the reasons that no suit titled John Peter and others vs Mohan Lal Mootiyal is already pending in the Court of City Judge, Jammu with regards to the same cause of action between the same parties? OPD 1 to 3.
ii) Whether the plaintiffs' suit barred under O.2 R.2 CPC, if so, how? OPD 1 to 3.
iii) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is time barred, being out of possession and their title being denied by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 since the year 1970 and the defendants 1 to 3's rights have matured into the right of adverse possession? OPD 1 to 3.
iv) Whether the suit is barred by S.48 of the CPC, if so, how? OPD 1 to 3.
v) Whether the suit is not properly valued and what shall be proper value? OPD 1 to 3.
vi) Whether any relief under O.1 R.8 CPC is required for filing the suit, if so, what is its effect thereon? OPD 1 to 3.

6. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.05.2008, decided the preliminary issues so framed and particularly with respect to issue No. 2 the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu observed that "the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the defendants, in order to substantiate their plea under Order II R.2 CPC, were required to place on record the pleadings of the previous suit. Without the pleadings of the earlier suit being produced