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

The parties entered into a consent decree on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned various properties

the settlement lacked specific technical descriptions of the immovable properties, leading the Department to struggle with drawing up and completing the decree

the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for registration, as noted in a report dated November 28, 2025

Defendant No. 1 previously sought to alter the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the Division Bench in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors

a coordinate Bench order on April 3, 2019, held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to complete the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application (GA/5/2023) and a supplementary affidavit providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate stamp duty assessment

1. Whether the technical details of properties provided in a supplementary affidavit can be used by the Collector to assess stamp duty for the completion of a consent decree

2. Whether the current application is barred by the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality following the 2009 Supreme Court dismissal of the Section 152 CPC application

Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court and the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

Rule 11 of Chapter XVI (and XVIA) of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which allows the Department to include short recitals in a decree derived from the pleadings and record

Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which defines the doctrine of merger

State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, concerning the finality of rejected claims

Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association, regarding the use of supplementary affidavits to improve a case

The Court reasoned that the current prayer is distinct from the previous litigation. While the 1999/2009 proceedings correctly held that the decree could not be altered under Section 152 CPC for errors, that ruling did not prevent the parties from enjoying the fruits of the decree through its drawing up and completion

Following the coordinate Bench's 2019 judgment, which is binding on the parties, the Department has the authority to incorporate particulars from the existing record to finalize the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence or an attempt to modify the settlement, but were existing details from title deeds and pleadings necessary for the Collector's valuation

Thus, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the legal objective (execution and assessment rather than correction) differed from the earlier failed application

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite "Form No. 1" containing these details with the Collector within a fortnight. The Collector is ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the Court within four weeks. All prayers for a stay of this order by the opposing parties were rejected