Rejection of modification under Section 152 CPC does not bar providing property details for decree completion and stamp duty assessment.

In a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," a Division Bench passed a consent decree on May 22, 1997

While the settlement recorded property allotments, 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 alter the decree under Section 152 of the CPC, but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009

Subsequently, a 2019 coordinate bench order directed the department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from existing records, holding that parties cannot be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application (GA/5/2023) and a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing the necessary technical details to enable the Collector’s assessment

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

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles of res judicata bar the current application for the drawing up and completion of the decree

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments

Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which empowers the department to add short recitals and collect particulars from the record to draw up a decree

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

Prohibition against reviving rejected prayers as established in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

The court distinguished between the "alteration" of a decree under Section 152 (which was previously rejected) and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree to ensure its fruitfulness

It reasoned that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit did not constitute "new" information or an "improvement" on the original prayers, but rather particulars already existing within the pleadings and materials on record

The court held that the doctrine of merger was inapplicable because the 2019 coordinate bench order—which directed the completion of the decree using available records—had already attained finality between the parties

Since the Collector’s inability to assess duty was purely due to a lack of technical descriptions, providing those details was deemed a procedural necessity to satisfy the 1997 decree's intent rather than a substantive modification

It held that technical details are necessary for the Collector to assess valuation for registration

The court directed the parties to file Form No. 1 (as required by the Collector) within a fortnight and ordered the Collector to assess the stamp duty and submit a report within four weeks

The prayers for a stay of this order were expressly rejected