Provision of technical property details for stamp duty assessment is permissible to facilitate completion and registration of a decree.

A consent decree was passed by the Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector reported an inability to assess the stamp duty required for registration

Defendant No. 1 previously sought to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute a clerical or arithmetical error

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench in 2019 held that the Department could add "short recitals" to the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings to ensure the parties could enjoy the fruits of the decree

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing the technical property details to facilitate the Collector’s assessment

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

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles of finality bar the current relief in light of previous litigation

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

It also relied on Chapter XVIA Rule 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules and Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC, which govern the contents and drawing up of decrees

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

The court addressed the finality of rejected reliefs as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

Finally, it considered the principle that a case cannot be improved via supplementary affidavit as held in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd.

The Court distinguished the present application from the earlier failed attempt to modify the decree under Section 152 CPC.

It reasoned that while Section 152 was restricted to correcting "errors," the current prayer focuses on the administrative "drawing up and completion" of the decree

The Court observed that a 2019 coordinate Bench order, which remained unchallenged, specifically authorized the Department to incorporate particulars from the record into the decree

The Court rejected the "merger" and "res judicata" arguments, noting that the current relief—enabling the Collector to assess duty—is distinct from the earlier modification request

Furthermore, the Court found that the supplementary affidavit did not introduce "new" facts but provided technical data already existing within the pleadings and title deeds, thereby not constituting an improper "improvement" of the case

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

The Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty based on these details and submit a report to the Court within four weeks

All prayers for stay of this order by the opposing parties were rejected