BAAJI GOVINDAN Vs. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice taken on behalf of contesting respondents 1 and 2, respondent No. 2 by Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas and respondent No. 1 by Mr. Hari Kumar. We do not think it necessary to hear the third respondent, the Subordinate Judges Court for the purpose of the disposal of this Writ Appeal.

(2.) The second respondent approached this Court with the Original Petition praying for a declaration that he is also entitled to the amount due under the decree in O .P. (Arb) 170 of 1994 obtained against the first respondent Kerala State Housing Board, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala State Housing Board and the Subordinate Judges Court of Thiruvananthapuram to disburse the amount due under the decree to him, the petitioner in the Original Petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Housing Board and the Subordinate Judges Court not to disburse the amount for other consequential reliefs. According to the second respondent herein he was the partner of a firm M/s. Builtek Contractors along with the appellant Certain claims were made by the firm against the first respondent Housing Board. The disputes were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator passed an award. According to the second respondent, at the stage of the award, the claimants to the award were M/s. Builtek Contractors and the present appellant Subsequently an application was made to make the award into a rule of court. It is seen that the award showed in the cause title only the appellant herein as the claimant. So before the Court, the appellant alone figured as the claimant plaintiff. The Subordinate Judges Court made the award into a rule of court. The Housing Board filed an appeal before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 7.4.1997 confirmed the award decree and dismissed the appeal. According to the appellant the Petition for Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court filed by the Housing Board was also dismissed.

(3.) The appellant took out execution. It is seen that he also filed an Original Petition before this Court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Housing Board, the judgment debtor to pay him the amount due under the decree. When a litigant has obtained a decree from the Civil Court for money, he has to execute the decree as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. We consider that his approach to this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India was an abuse of process. Such approaches should be discouraged and put down. But we are informed that this Court issued a direction to the judgment debtor to pay one half of the decree amount. We feel that such orders will only encourage misuse of Art 226 of the Constitution and make the work of this Court under that jurisdiction, more onerous than it already is. We feel that this Court must uncompromisingly refuse to entertain such Original Petitions where clear alternate and time honoured remedies are available to the litigant.