As per case facts, the Petitioner (defendant No.3) appealed an order from the Civil Judge which directed UCO Bank not to release 80% of FDR amounts to him, based on ... a clarification application filed by the bank. These FDRs were jointly held by the deceased Parminder Kaur and the Petitioner with an "Either or Survivor" mandate. After Parminder Kaur's death, the Petitioner encashed them and created new FDRs in his name. Plaintiffs (respondents 1 & 2) filed a suit for injunctions but did not specifically include these FDRs. Their ex-parte stay application was rejected. The plaintiffs claim an earlier Will for equal distribution, while the Petitioner relies on a later probated Will. The question arose whether the trial court could issue an injunction on a bank's clarification application regarding assets not explicitly part of the suit, especially after rejecting the plaintiffs' ex-parte stay and contradicting the bank's "Either or Survivor" policy. Finally, the High Court set aside the impugned order, stating it was illegal. It clarified that, as per bank policy and the absence of a restraining order, the bank should release the FDR amounts to the Petitioner.