Phillips, J.

1. This is a petition for revising an order of the District Court of Godavari refusing to grant an injunction restraining the execution of a decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiffs father. The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction and this view was upheld by the District lodge.

2. It is now contended that such an injunction will come under Order 39, either Rule 1 or Rule 2. It certainly cannot come within the language of Rule 1, for there is no suggestion that the property of which delivery is to be given is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. It is then argued that Rule 2 would be applicable and that this is an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing other injury of any kind." The alleged injury is the execution of a decree lawfully obtained. In order to hold that that does constitute an injury, it is necessary to hold that that decree is illegal, for, if the decree is legal, the defendant has even right to execute it, and in doing so cannot be said to commit any injury.

3. It is then argued that Section 94, Civil P.C., is wider than Order 39 and covers the present case, but I thin