Refusal of Section 152 CPC amendment does not bar supplementing property details from records for decree registration.

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

Although the properties were identified in the settlement, the decree lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for the registration and completion of the decree

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected by the Division Bench in 1999, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that the decree must be drawn up to ensure parties enjoy its fruits and authorized the Department to include short recitals from the records

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application (GA/5/2023) with a supplementary affidavit providing the technical property details necessary for the Collector’s assessment

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

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation bars the court from directing the Collector to assess stamp duty based on particulars not explicitly detailed in the original consent decree

The court considered Section 152 of the CPC regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments and decrees

It applied Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which allows the Registrar to include necessary short recitals when drawing up a decree

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

the principle against reopening rejected reliefs established in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey (2001) 1 SCC 73

Finally, it evaluated the rule against improving a case through supplementary affidavits as per Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

The Court distinguished the present application from the 1999 application under Section 152 CPC. While Section 152 was inapplicable because the omissions were not "clerical errors," the court held that parties cannot be left remediless regarding the fruits of a decree

The 2019 coordinate Bench order, which attained finality, explicitly empowered the Department to collect particulars from the records to complete the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing title deeds and pleadings

Therefore, providing these details to the Collector is a procedural step for valuation and registration (required for partition decrees) rather than a substantive alteration of the decree's terms

The doctrine of merger and the principle of finality were held inapplicable because the current prayer seeks the "drawing up and completion" of the decree, not a correction of the judgment itself

The parties were directed to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight. The Collector is directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks of receipt

The prayers for a stay of this order by the respondents were rejected