Providing technical property details for stamp duty assessment is permissible to facilitate the completion of a decree.

The suit, involving a declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," resulted in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997

While the settlement detailed property allotments, it lacked the specific technical descriptions required for registration

Consequently, the Collector reported an inability to assess the stamp duty necessary to finalize the decree

Defendant No. 1 filed an application (GA/5/2023) supported by a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate this assessment

Previously, an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019—which remained unchallenged—directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from existing records

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of the 1997 decree or a necessary step for its completion

2. Whether the current application is barred by the doctrine of merger or the finality of previous orders rejecting the modification of the decree under Section 152 CPC

The court examined Section 152 of the CPC regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

It relied on Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which governs the "contents of decree" and permits short recitals

The court further considered the "Doctrine of Merger" as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

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

Additionally, it addressed the use of supplementary affidavits to improve pleadings 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 "modifying" a decree under Section 152 CPC and the administrative process of "drawing up and completing" a decree

It reasoned that since the coordinate Bench order of April 3, 2019, specifically authorized the Department to add recitals from "pleadings and materials on record" to finalize the decree, the technical details provided by Defendant No. 1 were consistent with that mandate

The court held that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the previous Section 152 litigation concerned clerical errors, whereas the current matter sought the realization of the decree's fruits, which the 2019 order already facilitated

The court further observed that the technical details provided were not "new" but existed in earlier pleadings; thus, the supplementary affidavit was not an improper improvement of the case but a necessary disclosure to allow the Collector to assess valuation

The court directed the parties to file Form No. 1 afresh with the Collector within a fortnight. Upon receipt, the Collector is ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. Stay prayers made by the appellants and opposing defendants were expressly rejected