JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule l(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Oral, dated 12-2-1988, allowing the application for injunction 6-Ga in Suit No. 73 of 1983. 2. The facts of the present case are material for disposal of the appeal, hence they are being briefly noted. Suit No. 428 of 1965 was filed by the defendant-applicants against Ram Narain, Opposite Party No. 2, for possession over the house in dispute after terminating his licence. The suit was contested by opposite party No. 2 on the ground that he was not the licence. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 25-10-1971, but first appeal taken by the defendant-applicants was allowed on 8-9-1972. Against this order, Ram Narain, defendant opposite party No. 2, preferred a second appeal in this Court. The appeal was dismissed on 6-3-1981. Thereafter, the said opposite party filed Special Leave Petition No. 6627 of 1981 in the Supreme Court. The application was rejected on 7-9-1981. 3. The defendant-applicants filed execution case No. 19 of 1981 on 29-5-1981, for possession of the house. Opposite Party No. 2 filed an objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The objection was dismissed on 23-1-1982, against which the said opposite party filed a revision which was also dismissed on 28-9-1983. 4. In the mean time, opposite party No. 2 got a suit filed through his sons for injunction restraining the defendant-applicants from taking possession over the disputed house. The Trial Court granted interim injunction against the defendant-applicants, for vacation of which the defendant-applicants filed an application in the Trial Court. The injunction was, ultimately, rejected. Thereafter, First Appeal from Order No. 3 of 1982 was filed in this court in which interim injunction was granted at the first instance, but subsequently the injunction was vacated on 25-10-1983. 5. Therefore, Brij Bhushan, plaintiff opposite party, whose daughter is married with the son of opposite party No. 2, filed suit No, 78 of 1983, on 4-10-1983. In this suit, an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-applicants from taking possession of the house in dispute in pursuance of the decree in Suit No, 428 of 1965 was filed. The Trial Court disposed of the application by directing the parties to maintain status quo. The applicants filed an objection against injunction application. In this suit, an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-applicants from taking possession of the house in dispute in pursuance of the decree in Suit No, 428 of 1965 was filed. The Trial Court disposed of the application by directing the parties to maintain status quo. The applicants filed an objection against injunction application. The Trial Court had previously granted the order to maintain status quo upto 27-2-1984. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 Brij Bhushan, finding that there was no chance of extension of the same, moved an application for impleading him as party and directing the decree holder to proceed under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code. The executing court allowed the application for impleadment, against which the defendant applicants filed Revision No. 5 of 1985 before the District Judge, Jalaun. The revision was allowed by the order dated 28-1-1988, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. 6. Thereafter, the plaintiff opposite party filed an application dated 21-11-1988 for hearing of the injunction application 6-Ga-2, which has been allowed by arriving at a finding given by circuitous process of reasoning. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed. 7. We have heard counsels for the parties. The court below was wrong in allowing the application forgetting to look into whether the plaintiff opposite party had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The history of the case given above and the various proceedings indicate that the defendant opposite party was making efforts to the decree obtained by the defendant-applicants in the suit filed in 1965 by one way or the other. Most of those ways were clandestine. He got the suit filed by his sons and thereafter the present suit was filed by Brij Bhushan, who is the father-in-law of his son. The proceedings are mala fide on the face of it, and that the court below committed an error in finding a prima facie case by taking resort to its ipsi dixit. It was led away by irrelevant considerations. The court below should have considered the background in which the application for injunction was made. It did not do so. 8. The balance of convenience also did not justify the granting of the injunction application. No court has power to issue an injunction which results in stalling the execution of the decree. It was led away by irrelevant considerations. The court below should have considered the background in which the application for injunction was made. It did not do so. 8. The balance of convenience also did not justify the granting of the injunction application. No court has power to issue an injunction which results in stalling the execution of the decree. In no way, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff opposite party. 9. Consequently, we allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the court below, and reject the injunction application. The court below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. For a period of three months the possession of the house in pursuance of the decree shall not be given.