- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. PHILOMENA RODRIGUES W/O LATE B.E.RODRIGUES, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT ROSILLA, NEXT TO TEJASWINI HOSPITAL KADRI POST, MANGALURU PIN 575002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT MOVVAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA ACB MUDIGERE BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, K.M.ROAD, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALURU DIST-577132 Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 2. THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR CUM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NEAR DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, CHIKMAGALURE PIN 577101. 3. MRS EUNA RODRIGUES W/O MR. C L RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 601, DIVYA PALACE, UPPER BENDUR, MANGALURU PIN 575002. 4. SHRI D VISHWESHWARA BHAT RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ARBITRATOR, A MAJOR, NO.401, VARASHREE RESIDENCY, KADRI KAMBALA ROAD, MANGALURU PIN: 575004. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-30701/2024 BY GRANTING ALL THE PRAYERS MADE IN THE WP WITH COSTS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.30701/2024 (GM-CON). 2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying as under: "(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction holding that the action of the 2nd Respondent in certifying / affixing its seal on (i) Alleged Legal Opinion dated 17.09.2009 marked as Annexure-D, (ii) alleged Partnership Deed dated 28.09.1986 produced as Annexures-D1, (iii) alleged Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1993 produced as Annexures- D2, as illegal and is opposed to Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, to meet the ends of justice. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction holding that the 2nd Respondent could not have certified the photocopies or documents produced before it which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 are neither registered nor authentic nor in existence, to meet the ends of justice. (b) Grant the petitioner the cost of this proceeding, and (c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case," 3. The appellant was essentially aggrieved by an order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [District Commission], Chikkamagalur, in complaint No.71/2020. It is necessary to note that the appellant was not party to the said complaint. The said complaint had been filed by respondent No.3 [complainant], against respondent No.1 [SBI]. Respondent No.3 had alleged deficiency of service on the part of the SBI. She alleged that she was a partner of a firm being M/s.Manehithloo Estate along with B.E.Rodrigues, who has since expired. She called upon the SBI to furnish certified copies of certain documents including a certified copy of the statement of loan account; attested copy of all the loan documents; attested copy of equitable mortgage deed executed by the complainant and Mrs.Philomena Rodrigues; and the legal opinion rendered by Sri Sudhir, Advocate, Mudigere. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 4. The SBI resisted the said complaint. The District Commission concluded that the complainant had failed to establish the deficiency of service as she had not furnished better particulars in relation to the documents sought. However, SBI produced a legal opinion, which was exhibited as Ex.R1 and the same was directed to be furnished to the complainant. The complainant had also produced the Partnership deed of Manehithloo Estate in support of her claim, which was marked as Ex.P5 in the said proceedings. The SBI was also directed to furnish an attested copy of the said document as well. The operative part of the said order passed by learned District Commission reads as under: ORDER "Complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, filed by complainant as against opponent is dismissed. No cost. Opponent is hereby directed to furnish attested copy of Ex.R.1, Ex.P.5 to complainant within 30 days from today." 5. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the said order as according to the appellant, the complainant has secured the order to assist the complainant in a proceedings relating to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 inter se disputes between the parties. The appellant apprehends that the certified copies of the documents would be used in the legal proceedings. In the aforesaid context, the appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the directions to the SBI to furnish attested copies of the documents although one of the documents were exhibited by the complainant and not by the SBI. 6. It is clear that the questions raised relate to the evidentiary value of the said documents. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge had declined to pass any order. However, it was left open for the appellant to agitate the said questions before an appropriate legal forum. 7. We find no grounds to interfere with the said order. However, we clarify that all the contentions of the parties are reserved. Clearly, the order passed by the District Commission would not be accepted as conclusively accepting the veracity of the documents produced by the complainant, which are directed to be attested by the bank in a proceedings initiated in which the appellant was not party. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15860-DB WA No. 1216 of 2025 8. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE VM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14