JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu in a civil suit File No. 485/2008/Civil filed by the plaintiff-Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak (petitioner herein). The suit was filed on 03.03.2008 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-Rajinder Singh, his servants, agents and representatives from interfering the land measuring 90' X 60' comprising Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12 and Khata No. 435 owned and possessed by the plaintiff situated in Lane No. 9, Greater Kailash Sunjwan, Jammu. 2. The suit has been filed on the basis of the Sale Deed executed by one Raj Kumar on 02.05.1998 and registered by the Sub-Registrar, Munsiff, Jammu on 23.05.1998. 3. Though the defendant was set ex-parte on 25.02.2009 and the plaintiff was directed to produce ex-parte evidence but the suit remained pending for the reasons indicated in the minutes of proceedings till the application under Order-1-Rule-10 CPC was filed on 24.07.2014 on behalf of Sushma Jamwal, wife of defendant-Rajinder Singh Jamwal for being impleaded as party defendant on the ground that she holds permanent leasehold rights in the suit land as she is in possession of two plots measuring 02 Kanals i.e., 90' X 60' and 90' X 60' each on the basis of Lease Deed dated 10.11.1996 registered by the learned Sub-Registrar, Munsiff, Jammu for a period of 90 years. 4. Both the plots according to the appellant including the suit land are in her possession and she has already filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, in which restraint order has been issued against the plaintiff who is defendant in the suit. So the litigation in respect of the suit land is pending in two Courts, one on the basis of the sale and registered on 23.05.1998 and the other on the strength of perpetual lease deed registered on 11.11.1996. The only difference being the suit filed by the plaintiff is only in respect of 1 kanal of land measuring 90' X 60' and the suit filed by the appellant is in respect of 2 kanals of land measuring 90' X 60' each. 5. The Trial Court after considering the objections and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application and directed the plaintiff/respondent herein to file amended plaint impleading the applicant subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/-. 6. 5. The Trial Court after considering the objections and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application and directed the plaintiff/respondent herein to file amended plaint impleading the applicant subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/-. 6. This order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the applicant has no cause of action to be impleaded as defendant because the Trial Court has by order dated 13.03.2008 given a finding that the suit land is different in view of the dismissal of her application for vacation of interim order dated 03.03.2008 by order dated 13.03.2008, the applicant according to the plaintiff is bound under Order-2 Rule-2 of the CPC and on the principle of res judicata. It is further argued that the applicant is neither the necessary nor the proper party, therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and respondent No. 2 has no locus-standi to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. 7. Mr. R.A. Jan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, argued that the order impugned is illegal and without jurisdiction, as such, it is liable to be set aside. 8. He next argued that the land stands identified by demarcation, therefore, injunction is the only remedy and since it is her husband against whom relief of injunction is sought, so she has no locus, moreover, grant of injunction does not require declaration, therefore, respondent No. 2 is not even a proper party. 9. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel, argued that the revision is not maintainable in view of the proviso substituted by Act 6 of 2009 dated 26.03.2009 to Section 115 of the CPC. He also argued that suit is not only against the defendant but his agents are representative, therefore, the respondents who hold lease rights on the suit land is the necessary party besides being the wife of the defendant. His further contention is that which portion of Khasra No. 635-min, Khata No. 425-min, Khewat No. 16 was purchased by the petitioner has not been indicated in the Sale Deed with the help of Tatima Shajra, in the absence of which the petitioner cannot claim possession of any specific portion. He simply can at best claim ownership of one kanal subject to what portion he gets at the time of partition by metes and bounds. 10. He simply can at best claim ownership of one kanal subject to what portion he gets at the time of partition by metes and bounds. 10. Contents of the Sale Deed dated 23.05.1998 are relevant because the land comprised in Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12 and Khata No. 435 situated in Lane No. 9, Greater Kailash Sunjwan, Jammu is about 27 Kanals approximately and the plaintiff has purchased only one Kanal out of it but boundaries of the land purchased by him have not been specified. In the sale deed, learned senior counsel, further argued that in order to find out the location of the land, the plaintiff approached the Tehsildar Jammu on 18.01.2008, who directed the Patwari to report about the factual position and the record within two days. The Patwari promptly reported that the petitioner is recorded in possession of one Kanal of land which he has purchased from Raj Kumar S/o. Sh. Madan Lal there is no record of possession of Raj Kumar. However, the demarcation is not based on a sale deed as the specifications do not indicate in the Tatima Shajra that Raj Kumar had purchased only one Kanal of land out of Khasra No. 635, measuring 19 Marlas. As per record, Raj Kumar purchased one kanal of land from one Sanjhi Ram, who was one of the owner alongwith his four brothers Babu Ram, GirdhariLal, Om Parkash, Raja Ram and their mother Mst. Indri. So it is only the Sale Deed annexed by Sanjhi Ram in favour of Raj Kumar which could indicate the specifications of the suit land. 11. Since Mr. R.A. Jan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land has been specifically identified as per interim order so it is deemed necessary to clarify the position regards possession to be clarified. Regarding attestation of the possession of Order-2 Rule-2 CPC, the argument has no basis because Order-2 Rule-2 of CPC applies to a suit and any finding on any interlocutory order, it does not operate as res judicata. A reference to the interim order dated 03.03.2008 indicates that the nature of the order. Similarly reference to the order dated 13.03.2008 is necessary to set the record straight. Moreover, operative portion of the order say:- 12. "The applicant herein is neither the party in the suit and nor has applied for impleadment as party in the case. A reference to the interim order dated 03.03.2008 indicates that the nature of the order. Similarly reference to the order dated 13.03.2008 is necessary to set the record straight. Moreover, operative portion of the order say:- 12. "The applicant herein is neither the party in the suit and nor has applied for impleadment as party in the case. Moreso, the application has not been filed under any provision of CPC, as such, cannot be allowed. The interim order has already been passed on 3.3.2008 which has not been modified, vacated or altered till date. Moreso, the subject matter of the suit is different from the subject matter of this application. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the present application is dismissed as devoid of any merits. Be appended with the file after its due compilation. 13. The Court has thus not foreclosed the right, if the applicant to apply for being impleaded as a party, as such, this order does not come in the way of her application for seeking impleadment. Lastly, even though it is a suit for prohibitory injunction, before the injunction is granted, the learned Trial Court has to decide the question of possession so declaration of possession is implicit in the suit. 14. Be that as it may, this petition is not maintainable because it is barred by the proviso which says that "the High Court under this Section shall not vary reverse by any order while deciding the issue in course of her suit or other proceedings except where the order if it had been made in favour of a party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. 15. Since the disposal of the petition would not terminate suit finally, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 16. Even otherwise, the petitioner has deliberately chosen to make the husband of respondent No. 2 as defendant excluding her, though she is a necessary party as she holds lease hold rights in the suit property, so she is entitled to be impleaded as an defendant it is in the interest of the party that their rights are determined by this Court. 17. 17. The next question is the institution of two suits filed by the respondent-Sushma Jamwal in the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge, (Excise Magistrate), Jammu regarding which reference has been made in the impugned order dated 28.03.2016. Relevant part of which reads as under:- "In view of the above the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant appears to be a necessary party in the suit as otherwise there will be two decrees of two different competent Courts and even after passing of judgment dispute will not get resolved between the parties and the Court would also not be in a position to effectively adjudicate and settled the question involved in the suit. Equity demands that the application is required to be allowed but since the delay has not been properly explained by the applicant in filing the present application especially in a circumstance when the applicant earlier also filed an application seeking abeyance of the order passed by this Court and this Court dismissed that application, as such application stands allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by the applicant on the next date of hearing. The non-applicant is directed to file the amended plaint in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Application stands disposed of and be made part of the main file. 18. In view of the fact that the plaintiff suit is pending in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Jammu and two suits filed by the respondent-Sushma Jamwal are pending in the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Excise Magistrate), Jammu, the question arises whether these suits can be consolidated and directed to be trite in one and the same Court provided subject matter of the suit is the same. 19. It appears the plaintiff, Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak is not sure about the land in the revision petition, he mentions Khewat No. 12, Khata No. 435 and Khasra No. 635. The sale deed dated 02.05.1998 also records Khewat No. 12 and same Khewat number is mentioned by him in his application to the Tehsildar dated 17.01.2000. But as per Jamabandi for the year 1998-1999 annexed with the sale deed, Khewat number is 19 and not 12. But this land falling under Khasra No. 635-min was recorded in possession of one Rahim Baksh S/o. Karamdad Hajam R/o. Chowadhi as tenant at will in 1998-1999. But as per Jamabandi for the year 1998-1999 annexed with the sale deed, Khewat number is 19 and not 12. But this land falling under Khasra No. 635-min was recorded in possession of one Rahim Baksh S/o. Karamdad Hajam R/o. Chowadhi as tenant at will in 1998-1999. Even the police report dated 22.03.2000 refers only to Khewat No. 12, which is wrong. 20. But suit could be consolidated if the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff and the suit filed by Smt. Sushma Jamwal are the same. 21. Where the Court of Additional Munsiff has not disclosed the nature of two suits filed by Smt. Sushma Jamwal in the application filed by Smt. Sushma Jamwal under Order 1 Rule X of the CPC for impleadment as defendant in the suit. 22. Objections were filed on behalf of the plaintiff - Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak by M/s. Vikas Magotra and Sachin Sharma, Advocates on 18.05.2010. They have annexed copies of the two suits filed by Sushma Jamwal as Annexure-A. 23. One of the suit filed by Sushma Jamwal against the plaintiff - Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak is for declaration, that plot of land bounded on east by road cuts by plot of the plaintiff in Khasra No. 626 North by Road and South by boundary wall of a plot of adjoining owner situate in Lane No. 9, Greater Kailash, Jammu in Khasra No. 626, Khata No. 498, Khewat No. 19, Sunjwan and not in Khasra No. 635 min Khata No. 435 min, Khewat No. 12, Sunjwan, as alleged by the defendant-Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak on the suit filed by him in the court of Additional Munsiff, Jammu and the other suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant - Dr. Tariq Parvez Kraipak from interfering in the land measuring two kanals comprising Khasra No. 626, Khewat No. 19, Khata No. 498 (situated in Sunjwan, Tehsil Jammu, now Greater Kailash, Jammu) as fully described in the plaint. 24. Thus the dispute between the parties is whether the suit land measuring 1 kanal 90' X 60' comprised in Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12, Khata No. 428 is part of Khasra No. 626, Khewat No. 19, Khata No. 498 or part of Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12, Khata No. 425 situated in Sunjwan Greater Kailash. 24. Thus the dispute between the parties is whether the suit land measuring 1 kanal 90' X 60' comprised in Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12, Khata No. 428 is part of Khasra No. 626, Khewat No. 19, Khata No. 498 or part of Khasra No. 635, Khewat No. 12, Khata No. 425 situated in Sunjwan Greater Kailash. So the dispute about the land being claimed by the parties as such the Additional Munsiff rightly said that both the Court may reach conflicting conclusions. 25. So, it is not a case covered under Section 10 of CPC. Hence, the three suits are consolidated under Section 151 CPC and the suit pending in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Jammu since 2008 is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Excise) Magistrate, Jammu for disposal under law. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the transferee Court on 20.10.2019. 26. Disposed of with the aforesaid terms. 27. Trial Court record be remitted back.