Prior refusal of Section 152 modification does not bar utilizing records to complete a decree for stamp duty assessment.

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" involving the allotment of immovable properties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., survey details), leading the Department and the Collector to express an inability to complete the decree or assess the necessary stamp duty for registration

In 1999, an application by Defendant No. 1 to modify the decree under Section 152 of the CPC was dismissed, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009

Subsequently, a 2019 coordinate bench order—which remained unchallenged—directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from existing pleadings to ensure the parties could enjoy the fruits of the decree

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application (GA/5/2023) and a supplementary affidavit providing technical property details to facilitate the Collector’s assessment of stamp duty

1. Whether the introduction of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit for stamp duty assessment is barred by the doctrine of merger or the prior rejection of decree modification under Section 152 CPC

2. Whether providing technical details for the completion of a decree constitutes an impermissible "improvement" of the original pleadings

The court primarily considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees

It evaluated the Doctrine of Merger as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

It further addressed the principle of finality of litigation from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

The procedural restriction against improving a case through supplementary affidavits established in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

Finally, it applied Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court regarding the drawing up of decrees

The court reasoned that the 1999 and 2009 rejections were strictly based on the technical limitations of Section 152 CPC and did not render the parties remediless regarding the execution of the decree

It emphasized that the 2019 judgment already authorized the Department to incorporate particulars from the records to finalize the decree

The court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing title deeds and pleadings; thus, they did not constitute a prohibited "improvement" of the case

Distinguishing the present prayer from the previous failed attempts to alter the decree, the court held that this application was a necessary administrative step for the "drawing up, completion, and registration" of the decree, meaning the doctrine of merger and principles of res judicata did not apply

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

The court specifically rejected the prayers for a stay made by the appellant and other respondents