Furnishing technical property details for stamp duty assessment does not constitute an impermissible modification of a final decree.

In a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," a consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997

The "Mittal Settlement" described property allotments but lacked the technical details required for the Collector to assess stamp duty for registration

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in 2009, as the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors

In 2019, a coordinate Bench directed the Department to complete the decree, noting that parties should not be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application (GA/5/2023) seeking the completion of the decree, providing technical details of the properties via a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, to facilitate the Collector's assessment

Respondents opposed the application, arguing it was an attempt to modify the decree in violation of the doctrine of merger and prior judicial rejections

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via supplementary affidavit for the purpose of stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification or addition to a final decree

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles of res judicata bar the current application following the rejection of previous applications under Section 152 of the CPC

The court primarily considered Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC regarding the inherent powers of the court and the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or orders

It applied Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment and allow for short recitals to be added by the Department using materials on record

The court further addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as discussed in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, and the principle that a rejected prayer cannot be revived, as held in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

The court reasoned that there is a distinct difference between "altering" a decree under Section 152 and "drawing up and completing" a decree to ensure parties can enjoy its fruits

It noted that the 2019 coordinate Bench order, which attained finality, explicitly authorized the Department to include recitals by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record

The court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" improvements but were derived from existing technical data necessary for the statutory assessment of stamp duty

Consequently, the court determined that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the current relief (drawing up the decree) was distinct from the previous failed attempt to correct the judgment itself under Section 152

The court emphasized that the lack of technical descriptions in the original "Mittal Settlement" should not render the decree unenforceable or the parties remediless

It directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1, containing the technical details, with the Collector within a fortnight

The Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the Court within four weeks

Requests for a stay of the order by the appellant and certain respondents were rejected