APHC010500642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1040 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3552] Smt. Mudumala Satyavathamma and others ...Appellants Vs. Christian Brethren Assembly Trust and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. K Rama Koteswara Rao Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : Mr. Dasani Venkata Ramana for R.1 Mr. Ranga Surya Prakash Rao Kola for R.2 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 28th October, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 25.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.14375 of 2025. 2. The petition was filed by the Christian Brethren Assembly Trust challenging the action of the respondent – Union Bank of India in freezing the saving bank account of the petitioner Trust without following due process. 3. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge holding that the disputes between the members of the petitioner Trust and the petitioner Trust were civil 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1040_2025 in nature and that the bank in any case could not have proceeded to freeze the account without following due process. The learned single Judge further held that the bank being a public authority could not have acted at the behest of some of the members of the petitioner Trust in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge also recorded the statement of the counsel for the bank that the bank had already taken steps to defreeze the account of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a statement before us that they have already approached the civil court in this regard, where the bank, it is stated, was not made a party defendant in the said suit. It is in those circumstances stated that in the absence of the bank being a party defendant, the civil court would not have jurisdiction to protect the interest of the appellants and that the amount which was lying in saving bank account in question would be mis-utilised. The fact that the bank is not a party defendant before the civil Court, in our opinion, is a matter which the appellants herein must be more concerned about. In case there is any relief which was sought apart from the relief prayed against the defendant, the appellants would have taken requisite steps to implead the bank also as a party if they considered the same to be necessary for obtaining any interim order to stop the operating of the bank 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1040_2025 account in question. The fact that there is no interim order passed in favour of the appellants even against the petitioner Trust goes to show that the trial Court has not found even a prima facie case in the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs – appellants herein. 5. Be that as it may, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment and order impugned. The appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl