Providing property descriptions for stamp duty assessment does not constitute an impermissible modification of a final consent decree.

A consent decree was passed on May 22, 1997, based on a partition arrangement known as the "Mittal Settlement"

The decree lacked technical descriptions of the properties, preventing the Department from drawing it up and the Collector from assessing stamp duty

An earlier application by Defendant No. 1 under Section 152 CPC to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a later Division Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and record

Despite this, the Collector reported on November 28, 2025, that assessment remained impossible without specific technical data

Defendant No. 1 then filed the current application and a supplementary affidavit (February 10, 2026) providing the property details derived from title deeds

1. Whether technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit can be used for the drawing up of the decree and assessment of stamp duty, despite the previous rejection of a decree modification application under Section 152 CPC

2. Whether the current application is barred by the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation following the Supreme Court's 2009 dismissal

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees

Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court regarding the drawing up of decrees and the inclusion of necessary recitals

Doctrine of merger principles in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

Principle of finality of orders from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

Evidentiary standard for supplementary affidavits as discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

The court distinguished between the substantive "alteration" of a decree (which was rightly rejected under Section 152 CPC) and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree based on existing records

It observed that the 2019 Division Bench order—which attained finality—specifically empowered the Department to add short recitals using particulars from the pleadings

Consequently, the court found the "doctrine of merger" inapplicable because the present application sought to facilitate the execution of the decree as interpreted by the 2019 order, rather than re-litigating the Section 152 issue

The court held that the technical details in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" or an "improvement" of the case but were culled from existing title deeds and pleadings already on record

Providing this data was deemed a procedural necessity to allow the Collector to assess valuation, thereby enabling the parties to finally enjoy the "fruits of the decree"

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

The court held that the request was for the completion and registration of the decree, not a modification of its substance

The prayer for a stay of this order was rejected