ORDER K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 granting injunction against the petitioners from executing the decree obtained in suit no. 481 of 1970 of the Court of Munsif Fatehabad at Agra. 2. The brief facts are these. Bishambhar Dayal was a tenant of a shop which belonged to the petitioner no. 1 . This shop has been let out to Bishambhar Dayal, who carried on business in the name of Pyarey Lal Bishambhar Dayal in partnership with his brother Pyarey Lal. Bishamber Dayal died on 3.9.1963, but before his death, he executed a Will on 30.8.1961 in respect of his properties movable and immovable, in favour of his nephew Suraj Bhan. After the death of Bishambhar Dayal, the shop in question was occupied by Suraj Bhan. On 6.2.1964, Suraj Bhan made an application under section 7-C of the the U.P. Control of Rent and and Eviction Act for depositing the rent of the shop in the Court of Munsif Fatehabad. He mentioned in this application that Bishambhar Dayal was the tenant in the shop in question and after his death, Suraj Bhan have been recognised as its tenant. The petitioner no. 1 filed suit No. 481 of 1970 against Suraj Bhan, and Prem Shankar, who had illegaly taken into the possession of the shop by Suraj Bhan for ejectment and recovery of damages as well as arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 26.5.1972. Suraj Bhan preferred an appeal but the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Agra on 14.10.1972. Suraj Bhan filed a second appeal, which was dismissed by this Court on 6.3.1973 and the decree of ejectment and arrears of rent was affirmed. 3. The petitioners filed applications for execution of decree to obtain possession over the shop in dispute. To this application, objections were filed by Suraj Bhan under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The objections were ultimately dis missed on 27.8.1975. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 12.5.1976. Not satisfied, a revision was filed in this Court, which was also rejected on 13.11. 1978. After the proceedings against Suraj Bhan bad been finalised, one Avadh Behari filed a suit no. 273 of 1978 on the ground of his right as a tenant. In this suit, Shri Niwas, respondent no. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 12.5.1976. Not satisfied, a revision was filed in this Court, which was also rejected on 13.11. 1978. After the proceedings against Suraj Bhan bad been finalised, one Avadh Behari filed a suit no. 273 of 1978 on the ground of his right as a tenant. In this suit, Shri Niwas, respondent no. 1 was also impleaded as a party. Although Avadh Behari succeeded in obtaining an ex parte injunction, restraining the petitioners from taking possession of the shop in dispute, but it was ultimately vacated on 30.4.1979. Avadh Behari filed an appeal no. 160 of 1979, but the appeal was dismissed on 24.5.1979. Avadh Behari was given time by the Additional Munsif, Firozabad to bring a stay order from this Court upto 15.7.1979. Avadh Behari approached this Court, but that failed. 4. In the meantime Sri Niwas, who had been set up Prem Shankar, filed suit No. 173 of 1979 claiming himself to be the tenant of the shop on 16.7.1979. He also filed an application for injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree. I he application was allowed by the Munsif on 21.7.1979. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an objection to the injunction, but by the order dated, 18.8.79, the Munsif confirmed the stay order directing the status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the suit. As a result of this order, the petitioners were restrained from executing the decree obtained in Suit no. 481 of 1970. Against the order of the Munsif, the petitioners preferred an appeal, but that also failed on 18.2.1981. After the dismissal of the appeal, the present writ petition was filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and of the opinion that how was the process of the court abused is proved by the facts stated above. A decree which was obtained in 1972, could not be executed on account of one frivolous objections followed by the other. Sri Niwas, respondent no. 1 is the son of Brij Lal, who was the real brother of Suraj Bhan. Bishambhar Dayal, as noted above, executed a will in favour of Suraj Bhan. It was Suraj Bhan who fought tooth and nail upto the High Court. After Suraj Bhan lost, other proceedings started. 6. Sri Niwas, respondent no. 1 is the son of Brij Lal, who was the real brother of Suraj Bhan. Bishambhar Dayal, as noted above, executed a will in favour of Suraj Bhan. It was Suraj Bhan who fought tooth and nail upto the High Court. After Suraj Bhan lost, other proceedings started. 6. The learned Munsif, in the instant case, did not take into account the history of the case, which was relevant for the purposes of granting injunction against the petitioners. It has been said time and again that injunction, restraining a party from executing a decree, will not be generally given or granted such an injunction should be given only when the party seeking it has established a strong prima facie case. Had the learned Munsif taken care to look into the history of the case, he would have been convinced that the proceeding being taken by one after the other only with a view to forestall the execution of the decree. It is unfortunate that the Civil Judge in appeal also was led away by irrelevant considerations and maintained the judgment and order granting injunctions. 7. In the instant case the two courts below have thrown all the considerations relevant or granting of an injunction to winds. They were led away by the erroneous fact that Sri Niwas, respondent no. 1 was in possession of the shop in question. In coming to this conclusion, they did not consider the affidavits of the petitioners, which had stated that Sri Niwas have no concern with the shop. Apart from the affidavits, the history of the case was relevant. for finding the truth in the stand, of the said respondent no. 1. If the courts below, as stated above, would have taken care to look into the history and under what circumstances the suit for ejectment decreed, they would not have found the present as a fit case granting injunction. The question of prima facie case or irreparable injury would be required to be looked into. This has to be done by the two courts below superficially and without going to the bottom of the same. No doubt, power to grant injunction is discretionary, but, discretion has to be exercised according to law, not arbitrarily or capriciously The two courts below acted arbitrarily in granting injunction. This has to be done by the two courts below superficially and without going to the bottom of the same. No doubt, power to grant injunction is discretionary, but, discretion has to be exercised according to law, not arbitrarily or capriciously The two courts below acted arbitrarily in granting injunction. Lord Machular wrote:- "No man hopes wo succeed in a bad cause unless he has reason to believe that it would be determined according to bad laws or by bad Judges. The real way to prevent unjust suits is to take care that there shall be just decisions" The present is a case illustrative of some of the facts stated in the extracted quotation. In his book "Judicial Justice" V. K. Krishna Aiyar has written in page 89 as follows : "Corruption inside the institution given by credible information circulated by whisper is mounting...." However, without attaching any importance to the aforesaid statement of Krishan Aiyar, which cannot be ruled out, it is found that in this case the two courts below were patently erroneous in granting injunction to respondent no. 1. The result of which was that the petitioners were restrained to execute the decree of the suit which obtained in the year 1970. 8. In the result. the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Munsif dated, 18.8.1979 and that of the First Arditional Civil Judge, Agra dated, 18.2.1981 are set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to get costs of this writ petition, which is fixed at Rs: 500/-from respondent no. 1.