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

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation based on a "Mittal Settlement".

Although the settlement identified property allotments, it lacked the technical descriptions necessary for the Collector to assess stamp duty for registration.

In 1999, the Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to alter the decree, which was dismissed by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court in 2009.

Later, a coordinate Bench on April 3, 2019, held that the decree must be drawn up and the Department could add short recitals by collecting particulars from pleadings and records.

In the present application (GA/5/2023), Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing technical details and title deeds of the properties to enable the Collector to assess stamp duty.

The Respondents opposed this, arguing the doctrine of merger and that the details could not be added following the Supreme Court's prior dismissal.

1. Whether providing technical property details via a supplementary affidavit to facilitate stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification of a decree previously finalized by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and principles of finality bar the court from utilizing details from pleadings to complete the drawing up and registration of a consent decree.

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

Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, which allows the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree.

Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359 regarding the doctrine of merger.

The principle that a party should not be left remediless regarding the fruits of a decree.

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

The Court distinguished between the "alteration" of a decree (prohibited under the previous Section 152 proceedings) and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree for registration.

It noted that the 2019 order, which attained finality, explicitly authorized the Department to collect particulars from existing records to complete the decree.

The Court found that the technical details provided in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were not "new" or an "improvement" but were culled from existing pleadings and title deeds.

Consequently, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the present relief (registration) differed fundamentally from the relief rejected in 1999 (correction of errors).

The Court reasoned that a party cannot be deprived of the "fruits of the decree" due to technical omissions in the judgment's description of properties when those details are available in the suit's records.

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, incorporating the technical details from the supplementary affidavit. The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. All prayers for a stay of this order by the Respondents were rejected.