Refusal to invoke Section 152 CPC does not bar providing technical property details for stamp duty assessment.

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details, rendering the Department unable to draw up the decree and the Collector unable to assess the stamp duty for registration

An earlier application by Defendant No. 1 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that the request did not fall within the parameters of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors

However, a later coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019 (which went unchallenged), directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing technical details to facilitate the Collector's assessment

The Respondents opposed the application, citing the doctrine of merger and the finality of the previous rejections

1. Whether the rejection of a Section 152 CPC application for modification of a decree acts as a bar to providing technical property details for the purpose of drawing up, completing, and registering that decree

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles regarding the misuse of supplementary affidavits prevent the Court from considering property details already existing in the records to give effect to a consent decree

The Court applied Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC regarding the court’s inherent powers and the correction of clerical errors

It further relied on Order 20 Rules 6 and 6A of the CPC and Chapter 16 Rules 1 and 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment and allow for short recitals to be added by the Registrar/Master

The Court distinguished the doctrine of merger established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The finality of orders in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

Addressing the limitations of supplementary affidavits discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors.

The Court reasoned that the 1999 rejection of the Section 152 application was strictly limited to the technical scope of correcting "errors" and did not preclude the parties from enjoying the "fruits of the decree"

It emphasized that the 2019 judgment—binding on the parties—specifically empowered the Department to incorporate particulars from the pleadings to complete the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were not "new" or an attempt to "improve" the case, but were existing data necessary for the Collector to perform the statutory duty of valuation

Consequently, the doctrine of merger was held inapplicable because the current prayer for completion and registration is distinct from the previous failed attempt to modify the decree's substance

The Court concluded that a party cannot be left remediless when a judgment has been pronounced but the decree remains undrawn due to administrative technicalities

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 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

Requests for a stay of this order by the Appellants and certain Respondents were expressly rejected