JUDGMENT Mitter, J. - This Rule was obtained at the instance of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and is directed against the order of the District Judge, granting the Plaintiffs a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding to sell the properties, the subject-matter of the Plaintiffs' suit in execution of a mortgage decree. The main contention which has been raised by Mr. Chakrabarti who appears for the Petitioners is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction, as this is a case which is not covered by Or. 39, r. 1, C. P. C. His contention is that the properties in suit cannot be regarded as being wrongfully sold in execution of a mortgage decree, as the decree itself has directed the sale. We are unable to agree in this contention. The language of Or. 39, r. 1 is wide enough to cover the case of sale in execution of a mortgage decree. In the case where the property of A is going to be sold at the instance of B who had obtained a mortgage of the same property from C and A had instituted a suit to obtain a declaration that the mortgaged property was really his and not of C, he is certainly entitled to a temporary injunction. In my opinion Or. 39, r. 1, C. P. C. is intended to cover cases of this kind. The property, it cannot be said, is not going to be sold in execution of a mortgage decree, for the sale is in execution of the decree after the order absolute was made. There is really no distinction between the cases of sale in execution of a money decree and of a mortgage decree except this that in the latter case there is no attachment of the property and that is the reason why claim sections are not applicable to cases of mortgage decrees. Or. 21, r. 58, C. P. C. does not apply to a mortgage decree, because there is no attachment in case of a mortgage decree. The view which we take is in accord with the principle laid down in Gossain Money Puree v. Guru Pershad Singh I. L. R. 11 Cal. Or. 21, r. 58, C. P. C. does not apply to a mortgage decree, because there is no attachment in case of a mortgage decree. The view which we take is in accord with the principle laid down in Gossain Money Puree v. Guru Pershad Singh I. L. R. 11 Cal. 146 (1884), where Sir Richard Garth, C. J., observed that the learned Subordinate Judge would have been justified or was justified in granting a temporary injunction restraining execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the judgment-creditor against the father at the instance of a son, who formed a member of a joint Mitakshara family with the father. The other point argued is that it was not expedient for the learned Judge to pass an order in supersession of the order of the Court of first instance, as he has not considered all the aspects with regard to the balance of convenience in the present case. That, however, is a matter which we are unable to go into in an application under sec. 115, C. P. C. 2. The result, therefore, is that the Rule is discharged but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we think an order should be made directing the Subordinate Judge to deal with the case expeditiously, and we direct accordingly. Suhrawardy, J. I agree.