Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit would be applicable to this case is one of the questions that has come up for consideration in this case. It was contended that the learned judge would not have rendered the judgment had the court been correctly appraised of the facts after impleading the necessary parties. Prayer was therefore made to relegate the parties to the same position prevailing before the judgment of the learned single judge by way of restitution.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred with leave of this court. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C).No.39626 of 2003 permitting the second respondent to withdraw the amounts lying in the account of the first respondent firm with the State Bank of Travancore without the appellants in the array of parties. Appellants submit that the conduct of respondents 1 and 2 in approaching this court without making them parties to the writ petition is an abuse of process of this court and to get over the order in IA.2479/03 in OS 383 of 2003 of Munsiff’s Court. Thiruvalla. By virtue of this court’s judgment, the second respondent could release an amount of Rs.18,66,410/- from the fourth respondent Bank and utilized the same without the approval of majority of the partners of the firm. Respondents 1 and 2 had approached this Court since 4th respondent was reluctant to operate the current account No.41119 of the firm in view of the order of the civil court.

3. Appellants herein with specific reference to the order passed in IA.2479/03 in OS.383/03 had a sent a registered letter to the Bank informing them as follows:

“Referring to the order of the Hon. Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla as cited above we submit the following:

The firm T.O. Abraham and Company opened and maintains a bank account with your bank. From March 2003 onwards there is a dispute among the partners of the firm and consequently certain suits were filed in the matter of dispute for settlement of accounts, declaration etc. In this connection Hon. Munsiff Court passed the above referred order restraining him from utilizing any funds of the firm without majority decision of partners of the firm.

Hence in the light of the said order we inform that Sri. T.O. Abraham is not authorized to withdraw any amount on behalf of the firm from the bank account and if you pay any amount against his cheques without consent of majority partners the same will be at your personal risk and the firm will not be responsible for any withdrawal.”

(emphasis supplied)

On the basis of the above mentioned letter the 4th respondent Bank informed the second respondent, vide their letter dated 6.12.2003, that they are unable to permit the second respondent to operate the account which reads as follows:

“We are sorry to inform you that we have received a letter from Shri T.O. Alevas, Partner, Shri Gigy Kuriakose, Partner, Smt. Sheeba Alevas, Partner, Smt. Thankamma Baby, Partner, Shri Abraham Baby nominee of T.O. Baby of T.O. Abhraham & Company preventing the operation of the account. Besides this we have received an FIR from Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kottayam in respect of opening this account allegedly.

From the FIR we came to know that one of the partner Mr. Gigy Kuriakose has filed a criminal case under sec. IPC 120B, 400, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 34 against T.O. Abraham and Valsalan, the former of this branch before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-3. Kottayam questioning the genuine nature of opening the said account. Moreover, we have also received a letter from Shri T.O. Alevas preventing the operation of this account. In these circumstances we assume that you can understand What is our position in this regard and we are bound to freeze this account. We are also informing you that we will keep the account in that status until the dispute is over.”

(emphasis supplied)

Respondents 1 and 2, in the above-mentioned circumstances, have approach