The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on the status of the respondent as a 'State'.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been preferred challenging the letters dated 28.11.2022 bearing No.PF:OR.No.495/2022- 23 and dated 24.04.2023 bearing No.KBL:479/GF30/2023- 24 by the second respondent in refusing to permit the petitioner withdrawing the fixed deposits of Rs.1,34,37,826/-.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent -Sri T Subbaya Shetty filed O.S.No.302/2022 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, seeking the following prayers;

a) For Decree of Declaration to the effect that Plaintiff is sole Executor of the Wills of Mrs. Geetha T. Punja and Dr.P.Thimappa Punja.

b) For permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from allowing any operation of the Bank Accounts, Release of Fixed Deposits, Government Bond or any other Securities, Locker by anybody claiming as Legal heirs of Mrs. Geetha T. Punja and Dr. P. Thimappa Punja.

c) Such other and further reliefs, as this Court deems fit to grant.

d) Costs of the suit.

3. In the said suit, petitioner was not made as a party. The first respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants/banks prohibiting defendants from allowing any person to withdraw the amounts standing to the credit of Smt. Geetha T. Punja and Dr. P. Thimappa Punja, until disposal of the suit and grant such other reliefs. The Trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction on 19.11.2022 and the same was extended till 20.04.2023.

4. The temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was affecting the rights of the petitioner. As the fixed deposits were standing in the name of the petitioner, petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to implead himself as defendant No.13. The Trial Court allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to be arrayed as defendant No.13. The petitioner being defendant No.13 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC to vacate the interim order. The Trial Court proceeded to record a finding that the entire amount standing in the account of Smt. Geetha T. Punja has been transferred during the lifetime of Dr. P. Thimappa Punja based on the nomination made by Smt. Geetha T. Punja. The plaintiff claiming under the Will of Smt. Geetha T. Punja has no authority to seek any relief in respect of the account of Dr. P.Thimappa Punja. Hence, the Trial Court vacated the temporary injunction.

5. The petitioner in view of vacation of temporary injunction made representations to the second respondent-Bank on 17.04.2023 and 21.04.2023 to release the fixed deposit amounts for personal necessities. The second respondent-Bank proceeded to issue letter dated 24.04.2023 to the petitioner stating that in view of the fixed deposits being involved in a claim suit in O.S.No.302/2022 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, though temporary injunction order is vacated by order dated 20.04.2023, the Bank is unable to allow the petitioner to withdraw the amounts without specific order of the Court and suggested the petitioner to get clarification from the Court to the effect that they can pay the amount during pendency of the suit.

6. Sri H Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fixed deposits were transferred in favour of the petitioner standing in the account of Smt. Geetha T Punja during the lifetime of Dr. P. Thimappa Punja based on the nomination made by Smt. Geetha T. Punja. Hence, the deposits in the second respondent-Bank are self-earned money of the petitioner. In view of temporary injunction being vacated by the Trial Court, the respondent-Bank is not justified in refusing to allow the petitioner to encash the fixed deposits and insisting a specific order from the Trial Court.

7. On the other hand, Sri Nataraja Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri A Ganesh, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the subject matter of dispute before