Bapna Ag. C.J.—This is a revision by the decree-holder in the execution proceedings. 2. Bishambhar Dayal, legal representative of Mohanlal and Prabhu Dayal, decree-holders, filed an application for execution of the decree on 18th July, 1950. The decree was dated 12th July, 1937. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that the execution was barred under sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holder in reply said that the execution of the decree was stayed by order of the then Alwar Government by various notifications for a period from 7th October, 1938 to 31st October, 1940,and if this period was to be excluded, the application for execution could proceed. On behalf of the decree-holder, the provisions of sec. 15 of the Limitation Act were relied upon. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the time could not be excluded, as the orders were not by a court but the executive orders of the Government, which were not contemplated in sec. 15 to have the effect as claimed. The decree-holder filed an appeal but it was dismissed on 6th September, 1954. 3. The decree-holder has now come in revision, as the amount involved did not permit an appeal under sec. 105 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of Ameer-un-Nissa Begum vs. Mahboob Begum (1) and Director of Endowments Government of Hyderabad vs. Akram Ali(2). What has been laid down in these Supreme Court cases is that the firmans of the sovereign have the effect of overriding all other laws which were in conflict with them. In the present case while the orders are not in the nature of firmans, they are issued by the Government of the His Highness the Maharaja, and purport to stay the execution of decrees in a certain area in which the judgment-debtors lived. What is now to be considered is that whether those kinds of orders by the Executive Government are such as may amount to an injunction or orders under sec. 15 of the Limitation Act. In our opinion the word injunction being coupled with the order indicates that the injunction or the order should be one issued by a Court. The decree-holders are not entitled to the exclusion of time under sec. 15 of the Limitation Act. In our opinion the word injunction being coupled with the order indicates that the injunction or the order should be one issued by a Court. The decree-holders are not entitled to the exclusion of time under sec. 15 and there is no other provision by which any period during which the execution of the decree stayed by the order of the His Highness of the Alwar State, be excluded. 5. There is no force in this revision, it is a accordingly dismissed with costs.