R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. They are brothers. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction that he is the exclusive owner and in exclusive possession of the suit lands - agricultural fields-and that the respondent was interfering and disturbing his possession. Therefore he prayed for permanent injunction and also prayed for temporary injunction by an application exh. 5. The trial Court granted an ex parte injunction and after hearing the other side vacated the same. In appeal the said findings and order are confirmed. Hence the original plaintiff has come up with this Revision Application. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in exclusive possession since decades and also his possession is protected by interim order of the courts since 1987 and therefore the status quo be continued till disposal of the suit and the suit should be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed in both the Courts below and it would be traversty of justice if that status quo is continued. Without going into the merits the respondent is right. The concurrent orders of the two courts cannot be set aside except on merits. Mere lapse of time is no ground to allow the revision. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the exclusive owner and in exclusive possession of the suit premises. As against that the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly the lands are ancestral properties. In fact the petitioner-plaintiff himself by his notice given through Advocate on 8. 10. 1987 (Mark 27/1) categorically stated that the family was undivided joint family and had continued to be so after the death of the parents and though some of the properties were in exclusive possession of the petitioner and some of the properties were in exclusive possession and in the name of he respondent and some in joint names all properties had continued to be joint and the family continued to be Hindu Undivided Family. Thus it is prima facie established by the petitioners own admission in his legal notice that not only the properties are ancestral properties but they have never been divided and they continue to be joint family properties. At the hearing of the appeal before the lower Court it was contended that a partition had taken place in 1962-63 and that was also averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application exh. 5. However that story is clearly contrary to the averments of the plaintiff made in the notice given in 1967. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has prima facie failed to establish that he is the exclusive owner and in exclusive possession he cannot restrain the other co-owner and coparcener from enjoying the property. The petitioner-plaintiff as one of the owners and coparceners is entitled to remain in possession equally like the respondent-defendant is entitled to have possession and he cannot be restrained from exercising his rights as co-owner and coparcener. ( 5 ) BOTH the Courts below have on correct and proper appreciation of the material on record refused to grant interim relief. Such order does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence this revision application is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. No costs. The trial Court is directed to see that the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Revision Dismissed. .