- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101059 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. AIJAZ GULAM HUSEN KHAN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.8, BAUXITE ROAD, KUMAR HOSPITAL, AZAM NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. AKHTAR HUSSAIN S/O. KASIMSAB DHARWADKAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.5, H.NO.4877/5, DOUBLE ROAD, TV CENTRE, JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.268/2023 DATED 21-01-2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM BELAGAVI, AT. DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-D; ISSUE A WRIT DIRECTING THE HON’BLE TRIAL COURT TO IMPOUND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 25/01/2023 VIDE (ANNEXURE-B); ANY OTHER RELIEFS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER; ALL THE COST OF THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed in Original Suit no.268/2023 dated 21-01-2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM Belagavi, at. Dharwad vide Annexure- D; b) Issue a writ directing the Hon’ble Trial Court to impound the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/01/2023 vide (Annexure-B); c) Any other reliefs this Hon’ble court deems fit may please be granted in favour of the present petitioner; d) All the Cost of this Petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, a memorandum of understanding dated 25/01/2023, which is actually an agreement of sale, has been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 permitted to be marked in evidence without the same having been registered or stamped. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the document styled "Memorandum of Understanding," which has been permitted to be marked in evidence, is an agreement under which an additional consideration was agreed to be paid in respect of the sale transaction that has already been concluded. As such, it is submitted that, without the same being stamped and/or registered, the document could not be marked, and in this regard, it relies upon Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. Insofar as the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the document is required to be registered, the said contention would have to be rejected, primarily in view of the fact that there is no transfer of right, title, or interest in any immovable property under the memorandum of understanding. Even according to the petitioner, the memorandum of understanding is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 executed after a sale deed had been executed in respect of the property, agreeing to make payment of additional consideration. Thus, the embargo under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, would not be applicable to the said document. 6. As regards the second contention that the document was also required to be stamped, even as per the *contention of the counsel for the petitioner, this document is only the memorandum of understanding, which has been entered into only for the purpose of agreeing to make payment of an additional consideration over and above that paid under the registered sale deed already executed. If that be so, as held above, the same is not required to be registered. If there is any stamp duty required to be paid thereon at the time of marking the document, the Trial Court could always call upon the *plaintiff to make payment of stamp duty, along with any penalty, if so required. *corrected vide court order dated 25.02.2025 Sd/- (SGRJ) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 7. The petition has been filed even before marking of the documents and before any order passed, as such, I am of the considered opinion that the above petition is premature and not required to be considered at this stage. The trial Court would always have to take into consideration the above observation while permitting marking of the documents, if so permitted. 8. Petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GAB – upto para 6 ckk – para 7 & 8 List-3 Sl.No.3 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2860 WP No. 101059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [MR AIJAZ GULAM HUSEN KHAN VS. MR AKHTAR HUSSAIN S/O KASIMSAB DHARWADKAR] 25.02.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. I.A.No.3/2025 has been filed for correction of order dated 12.02.2025. 2. Accepting the reasons stated therein, the reference to petitioner in the paragraph No.6 is corrected to that of the plaintiff. 3. Registry is directed to carryout the necessary correction. Issue fresh certified copy. Sd/- ( SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34