Prior rejection of Section 152 CPC amendment does not bar providing technical property details for stamp duty assessment.

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

While the parties were aware of the properties, the decree lacked technical descriptions, leading the Collector to report an inability to assess the stamp duty necessary for registration

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to modify the decree under Section 152 of the CPC was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that the department could add short recitals to the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and records to ensure the parties could enjoy the fruits of the decree

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing the technical details and title deeds of the properties to facilitate the Collector's assessment

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification or addition to the decree previously barred by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the Collector can be directed to assess stamp duty based on particulars provided in a supplementary affidavit derived from existing pleadings and records

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

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

The court also referenced the principle that a case cannot be improved through a supplementary affidavit as per Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

the finality of rejected reliefs under State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

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

The Court distinguished the present application from the earlier Section 152 proceedings. It noted that while the decree could not be "altered" due to clerical error, the parties must not be left remediless regarding the "drawing up and completion" of the decree

The Court found the Doctrine of Merger inapplicable because the current prayer is for the execution/registration of the decree, not its modification

Regarding the supplementary affidavit, the Court held it did not constitute a fresh "improvement" of the case because the technical details provided were already present within the existing pleadings and materials on record

Since a coordinate Bench in 2019 (which remained unchallenged) had already authorized the Department to incorporate such recitals from the record, the Court determined that providing these details to the Collector was a necessary step to satisfy the stamp duty assessment requirement

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight

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

The prayer for a stay of this order by the Respondents was rejected