[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs Philomena Rodrigues vs State Bank Of India on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
WA No. 1209 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1209 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 575002.
2. BLANY RODRIGUES
S/O LATE B E RODRIGUES,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
signed by
R/AT ROSILLA KEREHITHLOO ESTATE,
NIRMALA
DEVI GOWDAHALLI POST,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
Location: CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT PIN 577132
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT MOVVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
ACB MUDIGERE BRANCH,
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
K, M ROAD, MUDIGERE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
WA No. 1209 of 2025
HC-KAR
CHIKMAGALURU DIST 577132.
2. THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE
REDRESSAL FORUM,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR CUM
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
CHIKMAGALUR 577101.
3. MR. C L RODRIGUES
S/O A L RODRIGUES
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT 601, DIVYA PALACE,
UPPER BENDUR
MANGALURU 575002.
4. SHRI D VISHWESHWARA BHAT,
RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE AND
ARBITRATOR, A MAJOR,
NO.401, VARASHREE RESIDENCY,
KADRI-KAMBALA ROAD,
MANGALURU 575004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS 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 WRIT PETITION No.
30595/2024 BY GRANTING ALL THE PRAYERS MADE IN THE
WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
WA No. 1209 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
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 appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in Writ Petition No.30595/2024 (GM-CON).
2. The appellants 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,
(iv) alleged Supplementary Deed dated 16.04.1999
produced as Annexures- D3
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
HC-KAR
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 are neither registered nor authentic nor in
existence, to meet the ends of justice.
(b) Grant the Petitioners 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 appellants were essentially aggrieved by an order dated
31.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission [District Commission], Chikkamagalur, in complaint
No.70/2020. It is necessary to note that the appellants were not
parties 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
Kerehithloo 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
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
HC-KAR
copy of equitable mortgage deed executed by late B.E.Rodrigues;
and the legal opinion rendered by Sri Sudhir, Advocate, Mudigere.
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, the 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 certain documents in support of her claim, which
was marked as Exs.P5, P6 and P7 in the said proceedings. The
SBI was also directed to furnish an attested copy of the said
documents as well. The operative part of the said order passed by
learned District Commission reads as under:
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 Ex.P.7 to complainant within 30 days from
today.
5. The appellants are essentially aggrieved by the said order
as according to the appellants, the complainant has secured the
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
HC-KAR
order to assist the complainant in a proceedings relating to inter se
disputes between the parties. The appellants apprehend that the
certified copies of the documents would be used in the legal
proceedings. In the aforesaid context, the appellants had filed the
writ petition challenging the directions to the SBI to furnish attested
copies of the documents although atleast three 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, left it open
for the appellants 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
appellants were not parties.
NC: 2026:KHC:3839-DB
HC-KAR
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
ND
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
