Judgment :- P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 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 Judge's 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 Judge's 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 Judge's 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. Builder 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 Judge's 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. 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. 4. In the executing court, respondent No. 2 filed an application claiming that he was also equally entitled to the amount covered by the decree that is sought to be executed. He also sought a stay of disbursement of the amount from the executing court to the appellant until this adjudication of this claim before the executing court. Respondent No. 2 also filed a petition invoking S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court which passed the original decree for what he called the correction of the decree and judgment. That petition is said to be pending. After filing the two applications before the executing Court, taking a leaf out of the book of the appellant he also approached this Court with the Original Petition invoking Art.226 of the Constitution praying for a declaration that he is also entitled to the amount due under the award decree, and for the other reliefs we have detailed earlier. When this Original Petition came up for admission, even without notice to the respondents therein including the appellant, the learned Single Judge directed the executing court to dispose of the applications filed by the second respondent before directing payment of the amount in deposit or disbursement of the amount in deposit, to the decree holder under the decree in O.P. (Arb) 170 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Prima facie the appellant is the certified decree holder and is entitled to execute the decree. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Prima facie the appellant is the certified decree holder and is entitled to execute the decree. The case of respondent No. 2 appears to be that the decree was really in favour of a firm of which he and the appellant were partners and as a partner, he was also entitled to a share in the amount covered by the decree. It is also for us to consider whether such an objection could be raised before the executing court or such a claim could be made before that court and could be adjudicated upon by that court. That will be a matter for that Court to decide. But so long as on the face of the decree the appellant is the decree holder, the executing court cannot refuse to disburse the amount deposited by the judgment debtor to the certified decree holder. We are therefore, of the view that the learned judge was not correct in directing that the amount be not disbursed to the appellant until the petition filed by respondent No. 2 is heard and disposed of. It appears to us that if respondent No. 2 has a claim that he is also a beneficiary of the decree obtained by the firm, it is for the second respondent to file a suit to establish his rights or to take such steps as may be available to him in the court which passed the decree and not to approach the executing Court with a claim that the amount be not disbursed to the person shown as the decree holder in the decree which is sought to be executed. In that view, we are satisfied that the learned judge was not justified in directing that the amount be not disbursing to the certified decree holder. With respect, we are also of the view that such a direction should not have been made without notice to the appellant who had been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the Original Petition. 6. We are therefore constrained to allow this Writ Appeal and dismiss the Original Petition filed by the second respondent herein. But we make it clear that this is without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to establish his claim in any appropriate mode known to law. 6. We are therefore constrained to allow this Writ Appeal and dismiss the Original Petition filed by the second respondent herein. But we make it clear that this is without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to establish his claim in any appropriate mode known to law. The order of the learned Single judge is vacated essentially on the ground that no occasion has arisen for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution - assuming that such a jurisdiction could be exercised in a matter pending in the executing court like the present one - without going into the merits of demerits of the claims made by respondent No. 2.