Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to impugnedthe document registered as Doc.No.2605 of 2011 on the file of SRO Villivakkam, having been registered in violation of the decree passed in O.S.No.154 of 2010. 2. The petitioner was married to Mrs.J.Kaplana on 11.04.1976. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was employed as Scientific Assistant in the Ministry of Defence and his wife was employed as Telephone Operator in Madras Telephones. The petitioner along with his wife decided to purchase a house and applied for allotment with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under Korattur Scheme. The petitioner was allotted a house under the monthly installment scheme in the name of his wife. 3. It is submitted, that though the property was in the name of his wife, it was petitioner, who made the actual payment, therefore, the petitioner has share in the property. This contention on face of it is contrary to abolition of Benami transaction Act, therefore, cannot be taken note of. 4. It is also submitted, that the wife of petitioner deserted him and started living with her daughter at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Whereas the petitioner is residing alone in the house, allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. The case of petitioner is that without the knowledge of the petitioner, his wife was intending to sell the property, though petitioner was entitled to half share in this house. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed O.S.No.154 of 2010 in the Court of District Munsif, Ambattur, against his wife and son for injunction, restraining them from selling the suit property or evicting the petitioner from the suit property. 7. The suit was decreed. The petitioner presented the decree of civil Court to the Sub-Registrar, so as to restrain his wife from alienating the property, and Sub-Registrar from registering the document. 8. The case of petitioner is that on 04.07.2011, the petitioner came to know, that his wife had sold the property to a third party on 29.06.2011. The petitioner, on coming to know about this, filed representation and also sent telegram to respondent no.2. It is the case of petitioner, that now respondents are taking steps to release the documents to the Executant of the sale deed, therefore, it has become necessary to restrain the respondents from releasing the document. The petitioner, on coming to know about this, filed representation and also sent telegram to respondent no.2. It is the case of petitioner, that now respondents are taking steps to release the documents to the Executant of the sale deed, therefore, it has become necessary to restrain the respondents from releasing the document. Therefore, the petitioner prays for grant of interim injunction by this Court and further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to cancel the document. 9. In sum and substance, the prayer made in this writ petition is to enforce the order of injunction, passed in favour of petitioner by Civil Court. 10. The averments made even if admitted, prima facie shows, that wife of petitioner was the registered owner of the property in dispute. It is the registered owner, who sold the property to third party. The remedy with petitioner, if any, is to enforce the order of injunction passed in his favour in accordance with law, by executing the decree of Civil Court and not to file this writ petition. It is nothing but misuse of the writ jurisdiction. 11. No writ is competent to enforce the order of injunction, passed by the Civil Court, in view of specific remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. No merits. Dismissed. 13. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.